v\\r 


9 


* 


/. 


</, 


<{" 


OS- 


■•30 


LIBRARY 

OF  Tin: 

UNIVERSITY    OF   CALIFORNIA. 

Received ....  J  ^/r^^  /  88  6. 

Accessions  No.     <2/^<&3a    Shelf  No. 


OS- 


HISTORICAL  NOTES 


ON   THE 


CONSTITUTIONS  OF  CONNECTICUT 


1639-1818 


PARTICULARLY 

ON  THE  ORIGIN  AND  PROGRESS  OF  THE  MOVEMENT  WHICH  RESULTED 

IN  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1818  AND  THE  ADOPTION  OF 

THE  PRESENT  CONSTITUTION 


By  J.  HAMMOND  TRUMBULL 


HARTFORD 

BROWN   &    GROSS 
1873 


^ 


J-U.'z. 


CASE,  LOCKWOOD  &  BRAINAED  ! 
HARTFORD. 


The  following  historical  sketch  was  written,  some  twelve  years 
ag°?  by  way  of  introduction  to  a  projected  edition  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  1818,  with  the  Journal  of  the  Convention  by  which  it 
was  formed,  extracts  from  the  Debates  reported  in  the  news- 
papers of  the  time,  and  notes  showing  the  origin  and  authorship 
of  the  several  sections,  the  intent  of  the  framers,  and  something 
of  the  secret  history  of  particular  provisions  and  of  the  motives 
which  influenced  individual  members  of  the  Convention  to  advo- 
cate or  to  oppose  their  incorporation  with  the  constitution.  The 
work  was  laid  aside,  till  I  should  have  leisure — which  now  it 
seems  unlikely  that  I  shall  ever  find  —  to  revise  and  complete 
it.  The  fact  that  the  Journal  of  the  Convention  has  just  been 
printed  by  order  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  the  interest  which 
is  everywhere  manifested  in  the  proposition  to  call  another  con- 
vention to  amend  the  present  constitution  or  to  frame  a  new  one, 
may  perhaps  serve  as  an  apology  for  the  publication  of  this 
sketch,  unfinished  and  imperfect  as  it  is. 

J.  H.  T. 

Hartford,  Conn.,  July  1st,  1873. 


HISTORICAL   NOTES 


ON  THE 


CONSTITUTIONS   OF  CONNECTICUT. 

1639-1818, 


The  constitutional  history  of  Connecticut  properly  begins  with 
the  adoption,  on  the  fourteenth  of  January,  1638-39,  of  the 
"Fundamental  Orders,"  by  which  "the  inhabitants  and  residents 
of  Windsor,  Hartford,  and  Wethersfield  "  became  "  associated  and 
conjoined  to  be  as  one  Public  State  or;  Commonwealth,"  for  the 
establisbment  of  "  an  orderly  and  decent  government,  according 
to  God,  to  order  and  dispose  of  the  affairs  of  the  people  at  all 
seasons  as  occasion  shall  require."1 

At  the  first  settlement  of  the  colony  a  provisional  government 
had  been  instituted,  under  a  commission  from  the  General 
Court  of  Massachusetts  (March  3,  1636),  to  eight  of  the  persons 
who  "had  resolved  to  transplant  themselves  and  their  estates 
unto  the  River  of  Connecticut":2  "  that  commission  taking  rise 
from  the  desire  of  the  people  that  removed,  who  judged  it  incon- 
venient to  go  away  without  any  frame  of  government,  —  not 
from  any  claim  of  the  Massachusetts  of  jurisdiction  over  them 
by  virtue  of  Patent."3  It  was,  in  fact,  an  agreement,  ratified  in 
the  presence  of  the  Massachusetts  general  court,  between  the 
founders  of  Connecticut  and  the  representatives  of  the  Earlof 
Warwick's  grantees,  who,  as  the  instrument  sets  forth,  had 
"  sometime  engaged  themselves  and  their  estates  in  the  planting 
of  the  river  of  Connecticut,"  and  had  already  made  a  beginning 
at  Saybrook.  "  That  some  present  government  may  be  ob- 
served," Roger  Ludlow,  William  Pynchon,  John  Steele,  William 

1  Conn.  Records,  i.  20-25.  2  Mass.  Records,  i.  170. 

3  Records  of  Comm'rs  of  N.  England  ;  Hazard,  ii.  119  (corrected  by  MS.  Record). 


6  BEGINNINGS  OP  GOVERNMENT. 

Swaine,  Henry  Smith,  William  Phelps,  William  Westwood,  and 
Andrew  Ward,  —  two  from  each  of  the  plantations  afterwards 
named  Windsor,  Hartford,  Wethersfield,  and  Springfield, — were 
authorized  to  hold  courts  for  the  trial  of  civil  causes,  to  punish 
offenders,  and  to  make  orders  "  for  the  peaceable  and  quiet 
ordering  the  affairs  of  the  said  plantations."  But  it  was  ex- 
pressly provided  "  that  this  commission  shall  not  extend  any 
longer  time  than  one  year  from  the  date  thereof." 

The  first  "  General  Court"  —  in  which  the  river  towns  were 
represented  by  their  "  committees  "  —  was  held  on  the  first  day 
of  May,  16374.  No  reference  to  the  election  of  magistrates  or 
committees  appears  on  the  records  until  the  following  year,  when 
at  the  close  of  the  session  of  February  9th,  it  was 

"  Ordered  that  the  general  court  now  in  being  shall  be  dissolved,  and 
there  is  no  more  attendance  of  the  members  thereof  to  be  expected  ex- 
cept they  be  newly  chosen  in  the  next  general  court."6 

There  are  records  of  two  sessions  of  the  general  court,  March 
8th  and  April  5th,  1638,  in  both  of  which  the  names  of  Mr. 
Pynchon  and  Mr.  Smith  of  Springfield  (Agawam)  appear  in  the 
roll  of  magistrates  present.6  In  the  April  court  that  plantation 
was  represented  also  by  "  committees."  A  letter  of  the  Rev. 
Thomas  Hooker,  written  in  the  autumn  of  1638,  supplies  an 
omission  in  the  records,  by  showing  how  the  general  court  was 
at  this  period  constituted,  and  under  what  obligation  the  magis- 
trates were  invested  with  authority  : 

"  At  the  time  of  our  election,  the  committees  from  the  town  of  Agawam 
came  in  with  other  towns,  and  chose  their  magistrates,  installed  them  into 
their  government,  took  oath  of  them  for  the  execution  of  justice  accord- 
ing to  God,  and  engaged  themselves  to  submit  to  their  government,  and 
the  execution  of  justice  by  their  means  and  dispensed  by  the  authority 
which  they  put  upon  them  by  choice."7 

The  germ  of  the  first  written  Constitution  —  the  voluntary 
compact  of  January,  1639,  of  which  the  Charter  of  1662,  the 
declaration  of  State  independence  in  1776,  and  the  Constitution 
of  1818,  were  the  necessary  outgrowths  —  may  be  found  in  a 
sermon  preached  by  Mr.  Hooker  before  the  general  court  in  May, 
1638 :8  "  The  foundation  of  authority  is  laid,  firstly,  in  the  free 

*  Conn.  Col.  Records,  i.  9.  6Ibid.,  i.  12. 

6  Ibid.,  i.  13,  17.  7  Coll.  Conn.  Hist.  Soc,  i.  13.  8  Ibid.,  20. 


MR.    HOOKER'S   VIEW   OF   CIVIL  GOVERNMENT.  I 

consent  of  the  people.  .  .  .  The  choice  of  public  magistrates 
belongs  unto  the  people,  by  God's  own  allowance.  .  .  .  They 
who  have  power  to  appoint  officers  and  magistrates,  it  is  in  their 
power,  also,  to  set  the  bounds  and  limitations  of  the  power  and 
place  unto  which  they  call  them." 

A  few  months  later,  Mr.  Hooker,  writing  to  Governor  Winthrop, 
of  Massachusetts,  cited  "  the  old  rule,  Quod  ad  omnes  spectat,  ah  om- 
nibus debet  approbari"  and  avowed  his  conviction  that, "  on  matters 
of  greater  consequence,  which  concern  the  common  good,  a  general 
counsel,  chosen  by  all,  to  transact  businesses  which  concern  all," 
is  "  most  suitable  to  rule,  and  most  safe  for  relief  of  the  whole." 
But,  he  argues,  it  is  not  enough  that  the  people  exercise  their 
right  of  choosing  their  counselors  and  judges  ;  "  the  question 
here  grows — what  rule  the  judge  must  have  to  judge  by."     There 
must  be  established  law,  "to  have  chief  rule  over  rulers  them- 
selves."    "  That  in  the  matter  which  is  referred  to  the  judge,  the 
sentence  should  lie  in  his  breast,  or  be  left  to  his  discretion,  ac- 
cording to  which  he  should  go, — I  must  confess,"  wrote  Hooker, 
"  I  ever  looked  at  it  as  a  way  which  leads  directly  to  tyranny, 
.    .    .    and  must  plainly  profess,  if  it  was  in  my  liberty,  I  should 
choose   neither   to   live   nor   leave  my   posterity   under  such  a 
government."9     And  in  this  declaration  is  suggested,  not  doubt- 
fully, the  motive  which  impelled  Hooker  and  his  associates  to 
withdraw  from  the  jurisdiction  of  Massachusetts  and  to  found  a 
new  colony  in  the  valley  of  the  Connecticut.     For  in  Massachu- 
setts, though  "  the  people  had  long  desired  a  body  of  laws,  and 
thought  their  condition  very  unsafe  while  so  much  power  rested 
in  the  discretion  of  magistrates,"  "  great  reasons  there  were 
which  caused  most  of  the  magistrates  and  some  of  the  elders  not 
to  be  very  forward  in  this  matter."10     Governor  Winthrop  himself 
believed  that  the  magistrate  was  sufficiently  bound  by  his  oath 
of  office  and  his  church  covenant,  though  he  pronounce  sen- 
tence "  not  by  any  rule    particularly  prescribed  by  civil  author- 
ity," and  moreover,  he  was  firmly  persuaded  of  "the  unwarrant- 
ableness  and  unsafeness  of  referring  matter  of  counsel  or  judica- 
ture to  the  body  of  the  people,  quia,  the  best  part  is  always  the 
least,  and  of  that  best  part  the  wiser  part  is  always  the  lesser."1 
The   Constitution  of  1639  vested  "  the  supreme  power  of  the 

9  Coll.  Conn.  Hist.  Society,  i.  11.  10  Winthrop's  History,  i.  322. 

1  Ibid.,  ii.  350  ;  Reply  to  Vane,  1637,  in  Hutchinson's  Collection,  98. 


8  THE   FIRST  CONSTITUTION. 

commonwealth  "  in  a  "  general  court "  to  be  composed  of  the 
governor,  magistrates,  and  deputies  from  the  several  towns.  It 
provided  for  the  annual  election,  by  a  major  vote  of"  the  whole 
body  of  freemen,"  by  ballot,  of  a  governor  and  magistrates,  who, 
after  being  severally  sworn,  in  prescribed  form,  were  empowered 
"  to  administer  justice  according  to  the  laws  here  established,  and 
for  want  thereof  according  to  the  word  of  God."  Only  freemen 
of  the  commonwealth  were  eligible  to  the  magistracy,  and  the 
governor  must  be  "  a  member  of  some  approved  congregation, 
and  formerly,  of  the  magistracy."  No  person  might  be  reelected 
governor ."  above  once  in  two  years,"  and  no  person  might  be 
chosen  a  magistrate  unless  placed  in  nomination  at  a  previous 
general  court. 

"  Two  general  assemblies  or  courts  "  must  be  held  yearly ; 
the  first,  in  April,  to  be  the  "  Court  of  Election."  If  the  gover- 
nor and  magistrates  should  at  any  time  neglect  or  refuse  to  call 
either  of  these  two  "  standing  courts,  or  a  special  session  of  the 
court,"  when  the  occasions  of  the  Commonwealth  require,  a  ma- 
jority of  the  freemen  might  issue  summons,  meet  together, 
choose  a  moderator,  and  exercise  all  the  powers  of  a  general 
court.  No  court  might  be  adjourned  or  dissolved  without  the 
consent  of  a  majority  of  its  members. 

Each  of  the  three  towns — Springfield  having  already  with- 
drawn from  the  jurisdiction  of  Connecticut — was  authorized  to 
send  four  deputies  to  every  general  court.  The  deputies  must  be 
freemen  of  the  Commonwealth,  but  in  the  choice  of  deputies 
(which  must  be  by  ballot)  all  who  had  been  admitted  inhabitants 
of  the  town,  and  had  taken  the  oath  of  fidelity,  might  vote. 
"  And  whatsoever  other  towns  shall  hereafter  be  added  to  this 
jurisdiction,  they  shall  send  so  many  deputies  as  the  Court  shall 
judge  meet,  a  reasonable  proportion  to  the  number  of  freemen 
that  are  in  the  said  towns  being  to  be  attended  therein."  Only 
the  general  court  had  the  power  to  admit  freemen, — residence 
within  the  jurisdiction  and  previous  admission  as  an  inhabitant 
of  one  of  the  towns  being  the  only  qualifications  required  by  the 
constitution. 

The  deputies  were  authorized  to  meet  by  themselves,  before 
the  meeting  of  the  general  court,  "  to  advise  and  consult  of  all 
such  things  as  may  concern  the  good  of  the  public,"  and  to  inquire 
into  the  legality  of  the  election  of  any  of  their  number  ;  the  au- 


THE   FIRST   CONSTITUTION.  V 

thority  of  final  decision  that  an  election  was  illegal,  being  reserv- 
ed to  the  court. 

The  governor  was  sworn  to  "  promote  the  public  good  and 
peace,"  "  to  maintain  all  lawful  privileges  of  this  Common- 
wealth," to  execute  "  all  wholesome  laws  that  are  or  shall  be 
made  by  lawful  authority  here  established,"  and  "  to  further  the 
execution  of  justice  according  to  the  rules  of  God's  word."  Simi- 
lar obligations  were  imposed  by  the  oath  prescribed  for  magis- 
trates.2 Every  freeman  must  acknowledge  himself  "  subject  to 
the  government  of  the  jurisdiction  of  Connecticut,"  and  must 
swear  "  to  be  true  and  faithful  unto  the  same,"  to  submit  per- 
son and  estate  thereunto,  and  "  neither  to  plot  nor  practise  any 
evil  against  the  same."  3 

The  power  to  make  and  repeal  laws,  to  levy  taxes,  to  admit 
freemen,  and  to  dispose  of  unappropriated  lands,  was  exclu- 
sively in  the  general  court,  which  also  "  shall  have  power  to  call 
either  court  or  magistrate,  or  any  other  person  whatsoever,  into 
question  for  any  misdemeanor,  and  may  for  just  causes  displace, 
or  deal  otherwise,  according"  to  the  nature  of  the  offence." 

One  peculiarity  of  this  earliest  Constitution  must  not  be 
overlooked.  The  only  allegiance  it  exacts  is  to  "  the  government 
of  the  jurisdiction  of  Connecticut:"  the  only  "supreme  authority" 
it  recognizes  is  that  of  "  the  body  of  the  freemen  "  and  the  general 
court  in  which  they  are  represented  by  their  deputies ;  it  de- 
mands obedience  to  no  laws  except  such  as  "  are  or  shall  be  made 
by  lawful  authority  here  established — and  for  want  thereof,  the 
rule  of  the  word  of  God."  There  is  no  word  or  hint  of  submission 
to  any  sovereign  power  not  directly  exercised  by  or  proceeding 
from  the  people.  Connecticut  was  already  an  independent  re- 
public. 

The  right  to  alter  or  add  to  the  Fundamental  Orders,  though 
not  explicitly  affirmed,  was  understood  to  remain  with  the  free- 
men in  general  court  assembled.  It  was  repeatedly  exercised 
between  1639  and  lb'62.  In  1645,  it  was  ordered  that  a  lawful 
court  might  be  held  by  the  Governor  or  Deputy  and  three  other 
magistrates  (instead  of  the  Governor  or  Moderator  and  fourmagis- 

2  Conn.  Col.  Rec,  i.  25,  26.  3  Ibid.,  62,  63.     The  oath  of  a  freeman 

was  not  recorded — and  perhaps  its  form  was  not  prescribed — till  April,  1640. 

2 


10  THE    CHARTER   OF    1662. 

trates)  with  a  majority  of  all  the  deputies  chosen,  but  "  no  act 
shall  pass  or  stand  for  a  law  which  is  not  confirmed  both  by  the 
major  part  of  the  said  magistrates  and  by  the  major  part  of  the 
deputies  there  present  in  court,  both  magistrates  and  deputies 
being  allowed,  either  of  them,  a  negative  vote  "  on  the  action  of 
the  others.4  At  the  Court  of  Election  in  1646,  "  the  Freemen 
ordered  "  a  change  in  the  time  of  holding  the  Court  thereafter — 
from  April  to  May.5  In  May,  1647,  the  Governor  or  deputy  and 
two  magistrates  were  authorized  to  hold  "  particular  courts  "  for 
the  administration  of  justice  when  occasion  should  require6  In 
April,  1660, — just  before  the  expiration  of  John  Winthrop's  first 
year  of  office  as  governor — the  general  court  "propounded  to 
the  consideration  of  the  freemen",  an  alteration  of  the  fun- 
damental law  which  prohibited  the  election  of  the  same  person  as 
governor  in  two  successive  years,  and  at  the  ensuing  Court  of 
Election,  "  it  was  voted  by  the  freeman  "  that  "  for  the  future 
there  shall  be  liberty  of  a  free  choice  yearly,  either  of  the  same 
person  or  another."7 

In  two  or  three  instances  the  general  court  gave,  and  established 
by  law,  anew  construction  of  some  provision  of  the  Fundamental 
Laws.  In  1643,  the  court  "declare  their  judgment  "  that  those 
only  shall  be  deemed  "  admitted  inhabitants  "  who  shall  be  so  ad- 
mitted "  by  a  vote  of  the  major  part  of  the  town  that  receiveth 
them,"  and  again  in  1657,  the  court  ordered  "  that  by  admitted 
inhabitants  in  the  7th  Fundamental,  are  meant  only  house-hold- 
ers that  are  one  and  twenty  years  of  age,  or  have  borne  office,  or 
have  thirty  pounds'  estate."3 

The  Charter  procured  from  Charles  II.  (April  23,  1662,)  was 
not  regarded  as  a  grant  of  new  powers,  but  as  a  formal  recogni- 
tion of  the  government  already  established  by  the  people  and  a 
confirmation  of  the  rights  and  privileges  they  had  exercised  from 
the  first.  As  a  guaranty  of  their  title  to  the  soil  and  a  safeguard 
of  their  liberties  against  the  aggression  of  neighboring  govern- 
ments and  the  possible  encroachment  of  the  Crown, — as  an  admis- 
sion of  the  colony's  virtual  independence  of  king  or  parliament,  in 
all  that  concerned  internal  administration  of  government, — the 
royal  charter  was  a  precious. gift,  and  came  to  be  the  object  of  al- 

4  Conn.  Col.  Rec.  i.  119.  5  Ibid.,  140.  G  Ibid.,  150. 

7  Conn.  Col.  Bee.,  i.  346,  347.  H  Ibid.,  9C,  293. 


THE  PEOPLE  S — RATHER  THAN  THE  KING  S CHARTER. 

most  superstitious  regard.  But  it  did  not  in  any  way  affect  the 
relations  previously  established  between  the  people  and  their  cho- 
sen rulers.  The  frame  of  government  continued  to  rest  on  the 
same  broad  foundation  on  which  the  Constitution  of  1639  had 
placed  it,  and  "the  supreme  power  of  the  Commonwealth"  was 
made  to  consist,  as  before,  in  the  general  court. 

The  first  draft  of  the  charter  itself,  so  far  as  it  affected  the  lib- 
erties of  the  colony,  was  in  fact  prepared  by  the  general  court  in 
Hartford,  and  the  colony's  agent  was  instructed  that  the  patent  to 
be  procured  should  comprehend  "  all  the  rights,  privileges,  author- 
ity and  immunities  that  are  granted  in  the  Massachusetts  colony's 
patent."  Two  or  three  lines  which  were  finally  erased  from  these 
instructions  to  Winthrop  show,  more  clearly  perhaps  than  any 
clause  of  the  perfected  draft,  in  what  light  the  general  court  re- 
garded the  object  of  the  petition  they  preferred  "  to  the  King's 
majesty  :"  "  But  if  it  cannot  be  granted  that  the  bounds  [of  the 
colony's  jurisdiction]  may  extend  at  least  to  Hudson's  River,  we  do 
not  judge  it  requisite  to  expend  money  upon  a  Patent."*  The  King 
was  petitioned  to  bestow  his  royal  favor  and  grace  "  according 
to  the  tenor  of  a  draft  or  instrument"  that  the  Court  submitted 
for  his  formal  approval.10  In  this  view,  "  it  was  not  a  charter 
of  King  Charles,  but  a  charter  of  the  people  ;  and  under  it  the 
people  exercised  all  the  powers  of  government,  and  enjoyed  as 
much  freedom  as  had  ever  fallen  to  the  lot  of  any  community. 
"  The  application  of  the  people  for  the  charter  and  their  voluntary 
^acceptance  of  it,  gave  efficiency  to  the  government  it  constituted, 
— and  not  the  royal  signature,"  2 — in  the  judgment  of  those  who 
enjoyed  the  privileges  it  recognized  and  affirmed. 

When  the  American  colonies  declared  their  independence  of 
Great  Britain,  the  royal  and  provincial  governments  were  there- 
by dissolved,  but  that  of  Connecticut  remained  unchanged.  The 
General  Assembly  in  October,  1776,  after  recording  their  appro- 
val of  the  Declaration  of  July  4th,  and  resolving  "  that  this  Colony 
is  and  of  right  ought  to  be  a  free  and  independent  State,  and  the 
inhabitants  thereof  absolved  from  all  allegiance  to  the  British  ! 
Crown," — declared  : 

9  Conn.  Col.  Rec,  i.  580,  581. 

10  Petition,  in  Trumbull's  Hist,  of  Conn.,  i.  511,  512. 

1  Speech  of  Hon.  Jona.  W.  Edwards,  in  the  General  Assembly,  May,  1818. 

2  Swift's  System  of  the  Laws  of  Connecticut,  i.  56. 


12  ACTS  OF  1776  AND  1784. 

"  That  the  form  of  Civil  Government  in  this  State  shall  continue  to  be 
as  established  by  Charter  received  from  Charles  the  Second,  King  of 
England,  so  far  as  an  adherence  to  the  same  will  be  consistent  with  an 
absolute  Independence  of  this  State  on  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain,  &c." 

In  the  revision  of  the  laws  in  1784,  a  similar  declaration  is  in- 
corporated with  the  "  Act  containing  an  Abstract  and  Declara- 
tion of  the  Rights  and  Privileges  of  the  People  of  this  State." 
The  preamble  of  this  act  affirms  that, 

"  The  people  of  this  State,  being,  by  the  Providence  of  God,  free  and 
independent,  have  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  of  governing  themselves  as 
a  free,  sovereign,  and  independent  State  ;  and  having  from  their  ancestors 
derived  a  free  and  excellent  constitution  of  government,  whereby  the  Leg- 
islature depends  on  the  free  and  annual  election  of  the  people,  they  have 
the  best  security  for  the  pre:-ervation  of  their  civil  and  religious  rights  and 
liberties." 

The  first  section  of  the  act  is  as  follows : 

"  Be  it  enacted  and  declared  by  the  Governor,  Council  and  Representa- 
tives, in  General  Court  assembled,  and  by  the  Authority  of  the  same,  that 
the  ancient  form  of  Civil  Government,  contained  in  the  Charter  from 
Charles  the  Second,  King  of  England,  and  adopted  by  the  People  of  this 
State,  shall  be  and  remain  the  Civil  Constitution  of  this  State,  under  the 
sole  authority  of  the  People  thereof,  independent  of  any  King  or  Prince 
whatever."3 

In  May,  1777,  an  act  was  passed  "  prescribing  the  form  of  an 
oath  to  be  taken  by  the  freemen  of  this  State,"  by  which  those 
receiving  it  were  bound  "  to  be  true  and  faithful  to  the  Governor 
and  Company  of  this  State,  and  the  Constitution  and  government 
thereof."  Every  freeman  was  required  to  take  this  oath  before 
being  allowed  to  vote  in  the  election  of  any  officer  of  the  govern- 
ment. The  same  form — with  the  substitution  of  "  said  State,"  for 
"  the  Governor  and  Company  of  this  State" — was  incorporated 
in  the  revision  of  1784. 

If  the  government  of  the  colony,  before  the  revolution,  derived 
its  authority  from  the  consent  of  the  people,  and  not  from  the 
royal  charter — and  such  was  the  opinion  of  distinguished  jurists 
— then,  "the  constitution  which  originated  from  the  people,  and 
had  been  practised  upon,  continued  in  operation  after  the  decla- 
ration of  independence,  in  the  same  manner  as  before,  and  was 

8  Rev.  Acts  and  Laws,  1784,  p.  1. 


VALIDITY   OF   THESE    ACTS,    QUESTIONED.  13 

equally  valid  ;"  the  act  of  1776,  to  establish  and  perpetuate  it, 
was  merely  declaratory,  and  there  was  no  necessity  of  calling  a 
convention  of  the  people,  either  to  ratify  the  action  of  the  general 
assembly,  or  to  agree  on  a  new  form  of  government.4 

But  on  this  point,  questions  soon  began  to  be  raised.  The 
author  of  a  pamphlet  printed  in  1782,5  propounds  "a  modest  and 
decent  inquiry,  whether,  in  this  State,  since  our  Charter  has  been 
vacated  by  King,  Lords,  and  Commons,  our  Independence  declared 
by  Congress  and  ratified  by  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  we  have, 
strictly  and  properly  speaking,  any  Civil  Constitution  ?"  He  con- 
tends that  the  charter  by  which  the  colony  was  invested  with  all 
the  powers  of  government  and  legislation,  having  been  vacated, 
"  whatever  powers  of  government  we  derived  from  our  charter, 
terminated  with  it,"  and  that  when  "  the  King  who  grants,  and  a 
corporation  possessed  of  a  charter,  both  agree  to  declare  it  null 
and  void,  it  is  vacated  to  all  intents  and  purposes  whatever ;" 
that  the  civil  constitution  of  Connecticut  having  thus  terminated 
with  the  charter,  "  it  most  certainly  was  the  undoubted  right  of 
the  People  to  say,  whether  they  would  be  governed  by  our  old  form 
of  government,  or  whether  they  chose  to  frame  a  new  one  ;"  and, 
"if  that  is  the  right  and  prerogative  of  the  people,  to  say  how  and 
in  what  maimer  they  choose  to  be  governed,"  then  "  the  making 
new  forms  of  civil  government,  or  establishing  old  ones,  is  not 
the  proper  business  of  our  representatives,  without  that  power 
being  specially  delegated  to  them  by  the  people,"  and  "it  now 
lies  with  them  [the  people]  to  say  whether  they  will  abide  in  the 
same  situation  we  now  are  in,  or  to  appoint  a  committee  of  dele- 
gates, well  qualified  to  so  important  an  undertaking"  as  that  of 

4  So  thought  Judge  Swift,  System  of  the  Laws  of  Connecticut,  i.  57,  58.  Judge 
Root  (C.  J.,  1796-1807),  in  the  introduction  to  the  first  volume  of  his  Reports  of  Cases 
Adjudyed,  discusses  "  the  origin  of  governments  and  laws  in  Connecticut,"  and  argues 
that,  though  all  connection  with  the  crown  of  England  was  broken  and  dissolved  by 
the  revolution,  yet  "  the  Constitution  of  the  State  remained,  in  all  other  respects,  the 
same  unaltered  basis  of  government,  in  its  principles,  regulations,  and  efficient  powers, 
which  it  had  ever  been  from  its  first  foundation  and  establishment." 

5  "Brief,  Decent,  but  Free  Remarks  and  Observations  on  Several  Laws  passed  by 
the  Honorable  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  since  the  year  1775.  By  a 
Friend  to  his  Country.  Hait ford,  1782."  (8vo,  p.  55.)  The  authorship  may  be 
confidently  assigned  to  Dr.  Benjamin  Gale,  of  Killingworth — who  adopted  nearly  the 
same  course  of  reasoning,  and  in  the  same  style,  in  his  letter  to  Erastus  Wolcott, 
quoted  on  the  following  page.  I  have  a  copy  of  this  pamphlet  with  Dr.  Gale's  auto- 
graph presentation  to  Christopher  LeffingAvell. 


14  DR.  B.  GALE,  ON  THE  ACT  OP  1776; 

framing  a  constitution.  He  states  that  the  action  of  the  general 
assembly  in  1776  was  "  looked  upon  by  the  more  thinking  and 
judicious,  only  as  a  temporary  thing,  until  our  troubles  should  be 
over,  and  our  independence  acknowledged ;  and  I  know  some 
freemen,"  he  adds,  "  who  were  conscientious  in  those  matters, 
neglected  to  take  the  freeman's  oath,  upon  these  very  principles, 
who  cheerfully  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  and  fidelity  to  the 
States — supposing  the  assembly's  adopting  our  charter  constitu- 
tion de  novo,  uninstructed,  to  be  unprecedented,  and  that  it  con- 
tained some  things  which  in  our  state  of  independence  are  not 
salutary."6 

At  the  October  session,  1786,  a  bill  was  offered  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  for  referring  to  the  freemen  a  proposition  to  re- 
duce the  number  of  representatives.  Mr.  James  Davenport  (of 
Stamford)  moved  to  substitute  for  this  a  bill  to  reduce  the  num- 
ber of  representatives,  without  the  reference  to  a  vote  of  the  free- 
men. Several  members  objected,  that  this  was  "  a  constitutional 
question  ;  the  assembly  having  no  right  to  alter  the  representation 
without  authority  given  by  their  constituents."  Mr.  Davenport 
replied : 

"  We  have  no  Constitution  but  the  laws  of  the  State.  The  Char- 
ter is  not  the  Constitution.  By  the  Revolution,  that  was  abrogated. 
A  law  of  the  State  gave  a  subsequent  sanction -to  that  which  be- 
fore was  of  no  force  ;  if  that  law  be  valid,  any  alterations  made  by 
a  later  act  will  also  be  valid ;  if  not,  we  have  no  Constitution  so 
defined  as  to  preclude  the  Legislature  from  exercising  any  powers 
necessary  for  the  good  of  the  people."7  The  objection  to  the  intro- 
duction of  the  bill  was  sustained  by  the  House,  by  a  small  ma- 
jority. 

A  few  months  later  (February,  1787),  Dr.  Benjamin  Gale,  in  a 
letter  to  Gen.  Erastus  Wolcott  (who  was  then  a  representative  in 
Congress),  wrote,  confidentially,  as  follows:8 

6  Pp.  24-27.  The  writer  points  out  three  particulars  in  which  alterations  of  or  ad- 
ditions to  the  established  form  of  government  might  prove  of  advantage  to  the  State  ; 
(1)  a  constitutional  provision  "  that  no  citizen  shall  hoUi  at  one  and  the  same  time, 
more  than  one  place  of  public  trust,  either  civil  or  military;"  (2)  a  reduction  of  the 
number  of  representatives  to  one  from  each  town,  and  (3)  an  increase  of  the  number 
of  councillors  (or  upper  house)  to  three  from  each  county,  to  be  chosen  by  the  several 
counties,  and  not  on  a  general  ticket,     pp.  34,  35. 

7 New  Haven  Gazette  and  Conn.  Magazine,  Nov.  2,  1786,  p.  297. 

8  This  letter  is  with  the  Wolcott  MSS.  (vol.  iv.)  in  the  Library  of  the  Conn.  Histo- 
rical Society. 


PROPOSES   A    CONVENTION   TO   FORM   A   CONSTITUTION.  15 

"  Since  I  am  speaking  of  Constitutions,  suffer  me  to  tell  you,  in 
this  State  we  have  no  civil  constitution  at  all.  Our  charter,  while 
in  force,  was  a  grant  of  privileges  by  the  Crown  of  England  to  the 
inhabitants  of  this  colony.  After  the  Crown  vacated  our  charter, 
we  ratified  it  by  our  Declaration  of  Independence.  Our  assembly 
voted  it  should  be  deemed  the  Civil  Constitution  of  this  State. 
But,  sir,  you  know  that  a  civil  constitution  is  a  charter,  a  bill  of 
rights,  or  a  compact  made  between  the  rulers  and  the  ruled.  Most 
certain,  our  charter  can  in  no  sense  of  propriety  be  so  reputed. 
Our  representatives  are  in  no  sense  chosen  to  frame  a  civil  con- 
stitution for  us,  nor  is  any  general  assembly  which  I  ever  yet 
saw,  collectively  considered,  proper  persons  to  frame  a  civil  con- 
stitution. They  are  too  numerous  a  body  ;  nor  do  they  suffi- 
ciently understand  government,  to  do  this  thing." 

In  the  pamphlet  of  1782  ("  Brief,  Decent,  but  Free  Remarks," 
&c.)  Dr.  Gale  had  suggested  the  same  objections  to  referring  to 
the  general  assembly  so  "  nice,  delicate,  and  important  an  affair," 
and  proposed  "  that  each  town  be  directed  to  make  the  nomina- 
tion of  one  man,  for  that  end  ;  and  that  the  honorable  assembly, 
out  of  that  nomination,  elect  two,  four,  or  six,  in  each  county,  to 
carry  the  same  into  execution,"  by  framing  a  new  constitution, 
which  shall  be  printed,  and  submitted  to  the  people  "  deliberately 
to  adopt  or  reject  it."   (p.  29.) 

The  author  of  "An  Address  to  the  Legislature  and  People  of 
Connecticut,  on  the  subject  of  dividing  the  State  into  Districts  for 
the  Election  of  Representatives  in  Congress,"  printed  in  (Janu- 
ary) 1791,9  advocates  the  amendment  of  the  constitution  by  a  con- 
vention to  be  specially  entrusted  with  that  work.  Though  Con- 
necticut "  has  the  merit  of  giving,  at  a  remote  period,  a  degree  of 
perfection  to  some  parts  of  her*  constitution,  which,  if  it  be  not 
final,  is  at  least  unrivalled,"  yet,  says  this  writer  : 

"  I  am  sensible  that  the  constitution  is  susceptible  of  a  great  number  of 
fundamental  improvements;  and  Hook  forward,  with  an  anxious  heart, 
to  that  mature  and  happy  season,  when  the  spirit  of  people  will  admit  of 
a  great  and  radical  reform,  by  their  own  delegates  commissioned  for  this 
express  purpose.  I  am  aware  that  the  policy  of  assembling  a  convention, 
and  establishing  a  form  of  government  superior  to  the  power  of  the  legis- 
lature, has  been  called  in  question  by  some  ;  and  in  particular,  has  been 

9  "By  a  Citizen  of  Connecticut."     Printed  in  New  Haven.    8vo,  p.  37. 


16  JUDGE   SWIFT,   ON   THE   CONSTITUTION. 

ingeniously  controverted  by  a  writer  of  our  own  State,  whose  merit  I  have 
in  high  estimation.  But  whatever  influence  his  reasonings  might  have  in 
my  mind,  in  respect  to  the  strictness  of  principle,  I  must  acknowledge  I 
should  despair  of  ever  seeing  a  complete  reform  iii  the  political  establish- 
ments of  this  State  accomplished  in  the  ordinary  course  of  legislation. 
The  question  then  in  my  mind  is  whether  the  great  and  pressing  import- 
ance of  renovating  a  defective  and  unbalanced  government  will  not  justify 
a  departure  from  that  strict  political  principle  on  which  the  legislature 
would  claim  all  the  powers  of  the  community." 

Prior  to  1800,  the  number  of  those  who  denied  the  validity  of 
the  act  of  1776  and  maintained  the  necessity,  or  the  propriety, 
of  calling  a  convention  to  frame  a  new  constitution,  was  very 
small.  The  doctrine  laid  down  by  Judge  Swift  in  1795,  is  that 
which  was  generally  held  by  the  leaders  of  public  opinion,  was 
sustained  by  the  courts,  and  accepted  by  a  large  majority  of  the 
freemen  : 

"  Some  visionary  theorists  have  pretended  that  we  have  no  constitu- 
tion, because  it  has  not  been  reduced  to  writing,  and  ratified  by  the  peo- 
ple. It  is,  therefore,  necessary,  to  trace  the  constitution  of  our  govern- 
ment to  its  origin,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  its  existence,  that  it  has 
been  accepted  and  approved  by  the  people,  and  is  well  known  and  pre- 
cisely bounded The  colonial  governments  of  Connecticut  and  New 

Haven  derived  their  authority  from  the  voluntary  association  and  agree- 
ment of  the  people.  Here  the  social  compact  was  made  and  entered  into, 
in  the  most  explicit  manner .  . .  The  application  of  the  people  for  the  char- 
ter [of  1662],  and  their  voluntary  acceptance  of  it,  gave  efficacy  to  the 
government  it  constituted,  and  not  the  royal  signature.  ...  During  the 
whole  period  of  the  existence  of  the  colonial  government,  Connecticut  was 
considered  as  having  only  paid  a  nominal  allegiance  to  the  British  Crown, 
for  the  purpose  of  receiving  protection  and  defence,  as  a  part  of  the 
British  empire  ;  but  always  exercised  legislation  respecting  all  the  inter- 
nal concerns  of  the  community,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  authority  and 
control  from  the  King  and  parliament,  as  much  as  an  independent  State." 

"  The  necessary  consequence  was  that  the  renunciation  of  allegiance  to 
the  British  crown,  and  the  withdrawing  from  the  British  empire,  did  not 
in  any  degree  affect  or  alter  the  constitution  of  the  government.  The 
constitution  which  originated  from  the  people,  and  had  been  practised 
upon,  continued  in  operation,  after  the  declaration  of  independence,  in  the 
same  manner  as  before,  and  was  equally  valid.  The  people  were  only 
discharged  from  a  nominal  allegiance  to  Great  Britain ....  Their  internal 
government  remained  unaltered  and  the  same. .  .  .The  general  assembly 
ratified  and  confirmed  the  declaration  of  independence,  they  passed  an  act 


ACT   OP   1776    VALIDATED   BY  THE   PEOPLE'S    ASSENT.  17 

recognizing  the  ancient  form  of  government,  they  made  such  alterations 
and  introduced  such  amendments,  as  the  change  of  circumstances  re- 
quired. If  the  principles  before  stated  are  true,  then  the  conduct  of  the 
legislature  was  constitutional,  and  there  was  no  necessity  of  calling  a  con- 
vention of  the  people  to  agree  on  the  form  of  the  government."10 

Even  if  it  be  admitted  that  the  charter  was  the  sole  basis  of 
government,  and,  consequently,  that  separation  from  Great  Bri- 
tain annulled  the  constitution — that  the  legislature  having  no 
power  to  act  under  the  former  constitution,  could  give  their  acts 
no  binding  authority  on  the  people — "yet  the  subsequent  conductor 
the  people,"  says  Swift,  u  in  assenting  to,  approving  of,  and  ac- 
quiescing in  the*  acts  of  the  legislature,  has  established  and  ren- 
dered them  valid  and  binding,  and  given  them  all  the  force  and 
authority  of  an  express  contract.  .  .  .  The  assent  of  the  people 
may  be  expressed  by  delegates  chosen  for  that  purpose  to  meet 
in  convention,  or  it  may  be  implied  by  a  tacit  acquiescence  and 
approbation." 

The  same  doctrine  was  maintained  by  Mr.  (afterwards  Chief 
Justice)  Daggett,  in  an  anonymous  pamphlet  published  in  1805.1 
"  Nothing  can  be  more  groundless  and  false,"  he  says,  than  the 
statement  that  the  existing  government  "  never  had  the  consent 
and  sanction  of  the  people": 

"It  was  originally  framed  and  adopted  by  the  people. ..  .In  all  their 
elections,  in  all  their  appointments  of  officers,  the  people  have  practically 
assented  to  this  government  as  the  government  of  their  own  choice ;  and 
this  practical  assent  continued  for  ages,  and  repeated  hundreds  of  times 
by  their  own  voluntary  acts,  is  the  strongest  possible  evidence  of  a  hearty 
approbation ;  it  is  an  approbation,  too,  that  has  rested  on  the  surest 
foundation — that  of  a  long  and  thorough  experience ....  More  than  almost 
any  other  government  upon  earth,  it  is  the  legitimate  child  of  the  people, 
who  have  hitherto  constantly  nursed  it  and  cleaved  to  it  with  affectionate 
attachment;  and  whenever  the  people  (far  off  be  the  day !)  shall  cease  to 
give  it  their  voluntary  assent  and  support,  it  must  instantly  fall." 

While  the  notion  that  no  constitution  could  be  valid  without 
formal  ratification  by  the  freemen  was  making  its  way  from  the 
brains  of  "  some  visionary  theorists"  to  the  apprehension  of  a 
considerable  minority  of  the  people,  a  new  political  party  had  grown 
up  in   Connecticut  and  the  "  anti-fcederalists" — who  afterwards 

10  Swift's  System  of  the  Laws  of  Connecticut,  vol.  i.,  pp.  55-58. 
1 "  Steady  Habits  Vindicated,"  &c,  p.  11. 

3 


18  ANTI-FEDERALISM.      THE   MIDDLETOWN   CONVENTION. 

took  the  name  of  "republicans,"  but  were  stigmatized  by  their 
opponents  as  "  democrats," — became  strong  enough  in  numbers 
and  influence  seriously  to  embarrass  the  action  of  the  federal 
majority.  The  history  of_jtliis  party  in  the  State  begins  with  the 
"Middletown  Convention"  of  September  30th,  1783, — or  more 
accurately,  with  the  manifestation  of  opposition  to  the  "  commu- 
tation act"  by  which  Congress  granted  five  years'  full  pay  to  the 
officers  of  the  revolutionary  army,  in  lieu  of  half  pay  for  life. 
In  the  summer  of  1783,  town  meetings  were  held  in  several 
towns,  at  which  the  justice  of  this  payment  was  called  in  ques- 
tion, and  resolves  were  passed  denouncing  it  as  oppressive  to  the 
people,  and  subversive  of  the  principles  of  a  republican  govern- 
ment. A  convention  was  called  by  committees  of  Hartford, 
Wethersfield,  and  Glastenbury,  to  meet  at  Middletown  on  the 
third  of  September,  to  consider  this  subject  and  devise  a  mode 
of  redress.  At  the  adjourned  meeting  of  this  convention,  Sept. 
30th,  about  fifty  towns — a  majority  of  all  the  towns  in  the  State 
— were  represented,  and  a  petition  or  remonstrance  against  the 
commutation  was  addressed  to  the  general  assembly.  At  a  sec- 
ond adjourned  session,  Dec.  16th,  opposition  to  the  order  of  the 
Cincinnati  was  manifested,  by  commending  a  pamphlet  which 
had  recently  been  published  against  that  society,  by  Judge  iEdanus 
Burke  of  South  Carolina.  At  the  last  meeting,  in  March,  1784, 
an  address  to  the  people  of  Connecticut  was  framed,  presenting 
objections  to  the  commutation  act  and  to  the  Cincinnati.1 

When  the  question  of  ratifying  the  federal  constitution  was 
submitted  to  a  convention  in  1788,  the  vote  in  the  affirmative 
was  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight ;  in  the  negative,  or  anti- 
federal,  forty — about  one-fourth  of  the  whole.  This  nearly  rep- 
resents the  relative  strength  of  the  two  parties  in  Connecticut  at 
this  time  and  for  some  years  afterwards. 

Among  the  prominent  anti-federal  leaders  of  this  period,  were 
some  who  had  filled  high  offices  in  the  State,  distinguished  patri- 
ots of  the  revolution,  and  men  of  influence  in  the  general  assem- 
bly as  well  as  among  their  immediate  constituents.  William 
Williams  of  Lebanon  (a  signer  of  the  Declaration),  Gen.  James 
Wadsworth  of  Durham,  Gen.  Erastus  Wolcott  of  East  Windsor, 
— all  members  of  the  Council,  or  upper  house, — Dr.  Benjamin 


1  See  Noah  Webster's  "History  of  Polit.  Parties  in  the  U.  States,"  in  "A  Collection 
of  Papers"  &c.  (1843),  pp.  317—320. 


FEDERALISTS   OPPOSE  THE   RE-ELECTION  OP   ADAMS.  19 

Gale  of  Killingworth,  Joseph  Hopkins,  Esq.,  of  Waterbury,  Col. 
Peter  Bulkley  of  Colchester,  Col.  William  Worthington  of  Say- 
brook,  Capt.  Abraham  Granger  of  Suffield, — were  counted  with 
the  opposition,  and  denounced  by  the  zealous  supporters  of  the 
administration,  as  anti-federalists,  'democrats',  'anarchists,'  or 
worse.2 

After  the  ratification  of  the  national  constitution,  there  was, 
for  a  few  years,  comparative  quiet  in  Connecticut  politics.  It 
was  not  until  the  last  year  of  John  Adams's  administration,  that 
the  "  steady  habits"  of  the  State  were  again  disturbed  by  the 
violence  of  party.  Federalism  was  never  more  absolutely  dom- 
inant than  in  1798.  Two  years  afterwards  (Aug.  3, 1800)  Fisher 
Ames,  of  Massachusetts,  in  a  letter  to  Oliver  Wolcott  of 
Connecticut — who  was  then  secretary  of  the  treasury, — forebod- 
ing defeat  in  the  approaching  presidential  election,  suggested  a 
truth  which  experience  authorizes  us  to  regard  almost  as  a  general 
law  of  political  revolutions  in  a  republic :  "  Perhaps  a  party 
whenever  it  thinks  itself  strong,  naturally  splits ;  nothing  but 
dread  of  its  rival  will  bind  it  firmly  enough  together."3  The 
federalists  were  already  divided,  and  knowledge  of  this  fact,  which 
could  no  longer  be  concealed  from  the  people,  revived  the  hopes 
and  stimulated  the  energies  of  the  opposition. 

It  was  certain  that  Mr.  Adams  could  not  again  receive  the 
unanimous  vote  of  his  party,  for  the  presidency.  For  reasons, 
the  soundness  of  which  need  not  be  discussed  here,  he  had  lost 
the  confidence  of  influential  federalists  in  Connecticut.  "  It  is 
with  grief  and  humiliation,  but  at  the  same  time  with  perfect 
confidence" — wrote  Oliver  Wolcott,  to  George  Cabot  of  Massa- 
chusetts, in  June,  1800, — "  that  I  declare  that  no  administration 
of  the  government  by  President  Adams  can  be  successful.  .  . 
It  is  clear  to  my  mind  that  we  shall  never  find  ourselves  in  the 
straight  road  of  federalism  while  Mr.  Adams  is  president."4 
Uriah  Tracy  assured  Senator  Stockton  of  New  Jersey,  "  that  the 

2  To  what  height  party  spirit  had  risen  in  1786-7,  and  with  what  extravagant 
license  the  federal  wits,  and  the  federal  press  generally,  assailed  their  opponents,  may 
be  seen  in  "  The  Anarchiad,"  a  series  of  papers  in  verse,  originally  published  in  the 
New  Haven  Gazette,  which  are  understood  to  have  been  written  by  Col.  David 
Humphreys,  John  Trumbull,  Joel  Barlow,  and  Dr.  Lemuel  Hopkins, — possibly,  with 
some  help  from  Dr.  D wight. 

3  Gibb's  Memoirs  of  the  Administrations  of  Washington  and  Adams,  ii.  396. 

4  Ibid.  ii.  371. 


20  THE    REPUBLICAN   MINORITY  GAINS   STRENGTH. 

State  of  Connecticut  would  do  any  thing  to  promote  the  true 
interest  of  the  government  at  this  crisis  ;  that  they  had  no  pre- 
dilection ;  on  the  contrary,  the  men  of  most  importance  were 
disgusted  and  entirely  alienated  from  the  president."3  Two 
months  later,  Wolcott,  in  a  letter  to  Fisher  Ames,  not  only 
expressed  his  conviction  that  "  Mr.  Adams  ought  not  to  he  sup- 
ported," but  intimated  a  doubt  whether  "  his  re-election  would  be 
a  less  evil  to  the  country  than  to  incur  any  risque  of  the  promo- 
tion of  Mr.  Jefferson  "  :  for,  "  however  dangerous  the  election  of 
Mr.  Jefferson  may  prove  to  the  community,  I  do  not  perceive 
that  any  portion  of  the  mischief  would  be  avoided  by  the  election 
of  Mr.  Adams."6  "  Let  who  will  be  president" — so  thought 
Chauncey  Goodrich, — "  the  pride  of  American  character  and  office 
for  awhile  must  be  faded";  as  for  Connecticut,  " the  public 
mind  is  puzzled  and  fretted.  People  don't  know  what  to  think 
of  measures  or  men ;  they  are  mad  because  they  are  in  the 
dark."7 

When  leaders  speculate  on  the  advantages  of  defeat,  and  the 
rank  and  file  are  "  puzzled  and  fretted,"  opposition  is  likely  to 
gain  a  good  many  new  recruits.  The  republicans  understood 
how  to  take  advantage  of  the  situation.  The  federalists  began 
to  admit  that,  even  in  Connecticut,  "  the  skilful  attacks  of  a  vin- 
dictive and  intelligent  opposition,"  were  becoming  formidable, — 
were  "  destroying  all  confidence  "  in  the  administration,  even 
while  "  the  papers  on  our  side  are  filled  with  toasts  and  nonsen- 
sical paragraphs  attributing  wisdom  and  firmness  to  the  Presi- 
dent." s  Gen.  Ebenezer  Huntington  wrote  from  Norwich,  in 
August:  "There  is  a  change  of  opinion  affecting  the  people  of 
this  State ;  and  at  present,  I  am  doubtful  what  extent  it  will 
gain.  There  are  many  who  have  heretofore  assumed  the  charac- 
ter of  federalists,  who  have  lately  shown  themselves  democrats, 
and  are  high  in  their  commendation  of  Jefferson,  in  hopes  to  par- 
take of  the  loaves  and  fishes  which  are  to  be  distributed  by  the 
new  President."  °  (The  federalists  spoke  of  their  opponents,  in- 
differently, as  "  Jacobins,"  or  "  democrats," — never  conceding 
to  them  an  exclusiveTight  to  the  designation  of  "  republicans.")10 

5  Ibid.  ii.  374.  c  Ibid.  401.  7  Ibid.  394. 

8  Ibid.  371  (Wolcott  to  G.  Cabot).  9Ibid.  39S. 

10  Abraham  Bishop,  in  an  Oration  on  "  Connecticut  Republicanism"  (New  Haven, 


RE-ESTABLISHED.  21 

National  defeat,  in  the  election  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  restored  union 
to  the  federal  party  in  Connecticut.  Its  relative  strength  was 
somewhat  impaired  by  desertion,  and — to  say  nothing  of  changes 
wrought  by  honest  convictions — "  the  loaves  and  fishes,"  might 
now  and  then  tempt  a  straggler  to  the  republican  camp.  But 
the  State,  as  well  as  the  national  government,  had  its  rewards  for 
the  faithful,  and  the  federal  managers  took  care  that  these  were 
judiciously  distributed.  The  party  was  no  longer  without  that 
wholesome  "dread  of  its  rival,"  so  essential  to  the  preservation 
of  union  :  but  it  was  strong  enough  to  maintain,  for  sixteen  years 
yet,  against  a  vigorous  opposition,  and  all  the  republican  influ- 
ences which  could  be  brought  to  bear  from  without,  absolute  con- 
trol of  the  State  government  and  of  legislation.  It  was  the  boast 
of  the  federalists,  and  the  sneer  of  their  adversaries,  that  the 
"  steady  habits  "  of  Connecticut  were  too  firmly  established  to  be 
affected  by  changes  in  the  national  administration  or  in  neigh- 
boring States.  The  Republican  Watch-Tower  (Cheetham's  paper) 
of  New  York,  in  an  article  on  "  Connecticut  Policy,"  June  17th, 
1801,  declares  that 

"  The  sentiments  of  the  State  have  been  marked,  as  well  while  a  colony 
as  now,  with  a  steadiness  that  excludes  both  retrogradation  and  advance- 
ment. Like  an  isthmus,  inanimate  and  immovable,  she  bids  defiance  to 
the  meliorating  progression  made  on  both  sides  of  her.  The  advancement 
of  political  science,  generated  by  our  revolution,  has  neither  changed  her 
constitution  nor  affected  her  steady  habits.  ...  A  fanatic  veneration  for 
a  pampered,  deluding  and  anti-christian  priesthood,  renders  [her  people] 
the  dupes  of  their  cunning,  and  subservient  to  their  power.  .  .  .  And  the 
citizens,  really  honest,  but  enveloped  in  superstition,  are  converted  into 
instruments  by  the  cunning  of  their  priestly  rulers,  to  debase  themselves 
and  to  exalt  their  oppressors."11 

"  The   steady  habits   of  New   England,"   said   Mr.   Abraham 


Sept ,  1800,)  seems  to  accept  for  his  party  the  name  of  Democrats.  "The  terms  '  re- 
publicans '  and  'democrats'  are,"  he  says,  "used  synonomously  throughout  the 
oration,  because  the  men  who  maintain  the  principles  of  1776,  are  characterized  by  one 
or  the  other  of  these  names  in  different  parts  of  the  country"  (p.  7). 

11  "  Every  person  who  has  read  the  principal  Jacobin  gazettes  for  a  considerable 
time  past,"  says  Mr.  Dwight,  in  his  Cincinnati  oration,  with  reference  to  this  extract 
from  the  Watch  Tower,  "  must  have  seen  that  there  is  existing  a  peculiar  animosity 
against  the  government,  institutions,  clergy,  and  people,  of  Connecticut."  The  fed- 
eralists reciprocated  all  the  animosity,  and  were  noways  humbled  by  the  rebukes  they 


22  THE   "  STEADY    HABITS  "    OP   CONNECTICUT    FEDERALISM. 

Bishop,  in  his  oration  at  Wallingford,  March  11th,  1801,  "  pre- 
sent the  fourth  obstacle  to  the  diffusion  of  truth.  The  sailor 
nailed  the  needle  of  his  compass  to  the  cardinal  point,  and  swore 
it  should  not  be  always  traversing.  So  does  the  New  England 
friend  of  order." 

"  It  has  become  very  fashionable,"  replied  a  federal  orator,  "  to 
ridicule  the  attachment  of  the  people  of  Connecticut  to  their 
government,  their  institutions,  and  their  "  steady  habits."  But 
before  we  add  our  sneers  to  those  of  the  Jacobins',  let  us  devote  a 
few  moments  to  a  consideration  of  the  nature  and  effects  of  that 
government,  those  institutions,  and  habits."  In  the  course  of 
this  review,  he  remarks  : 

"  Connecticut  exhibits  the  only  instance  in  the  history  of  nations,  of  a 
government  purely  Republican,  which  has  stood  the  test  of  experience  for 
more  than  a  century  and  a  half,  with  firmness  enough  to  withstand  the 
shocks  of  faction,  and  revolution.     Our  government  is  a  government  of 


constantly  received  from  the  "Jacobin"  press  of  other  states.  They  boasted  of  tbe  position 
of  their  State,  "  placed  as  a  bulwark  against  the  approaches  of  a  disorganizing  spirit." 
"  However  enslaved  tbey  may  be,  either  by  superstition  or  priestcraft,  the  people  of 
Connecticut  have  got  sense  enough  left,  to  appreciate  the  merits  of  those  who  thus  tra- 
duce their  character,  country,  government  and  religion,  whether  they  spring  from 
her  own  soil,  or  are  the  renegadoes  of  Europe."  "  If  we  are  to  learn  the  principles  of 
liberty  and  government  from  the  Coopers,  Callenders,  Duanes,  and  Cheethams,  of 
England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland,  we  have  got  to  pass  through  a  tremendous  and  bloody 
schooling."  (Dwight's  oration,  15,  32,  41.)  The  following  lines  from  "  Sketches  of 
the  Times,  for  the  year  1803" — a  New  Year's  address  for  the  Hartford  Courant,  1804, 
(re-printed  with  "  The  Echo,"  in  1807),  were  probably  from  Theodore  Dwight's  pen  : 

"  And  here,  in  erring  reason's  spite, 

'Mid  storms  of  truth,  and  floods  of  light, 

Unmov'd  by  threats,  unaw'd  by  fears, 

Connecticut  her  front  uprears. 

On  Democratic  frontiers  plac'd, 

By  spirits  base  and  foul  disgrae'd, 

Annoy'd  with  Jacobinic  engines, 

And  doom'dto  Governmental  vengeance, 

Straight  on  her  course  she  firmly  steers, 

Nor  jibes,  nor  tacks,  nor  scuds,  nor  veers, 
.  Not  the  whole  force  they  all  can  yield, 

Can  drive  her  vet'rans  from  the  field. 

The  same  pure,  patriotic  fires 

Which  warm'd  the  bosoms  of  their  Sires, 

That  generous,  that  effulgent  flame, 

Which  glow'd  in  Winthrop's  deathless  name, 

Unsullied  through  their  bosoms  runs, 

Inspires  and  animates  her  sons." 


piriv 

THE    STATE   HAS   NO    WRITTEN    CONSTITUTION.  23 


practice,  and  not  of  theory ....  Resting  its  claim  to  pre-eminence  on  the 
ground  of  long  experience  and  practice,  it  sets  all  theory  at  defiance.  At 
the  same  time,  it  is  not  easy  to  say  what  constitutes  its  strength  and 
force....  We  have,  in  fact,  no  written  constitution,  no  executive  power 
or  patronage."* 

In  a  note  to  this  oration,  Mr.  Dwight  gave  a  sketch  of  the  con- 
stitutional history  of  the  State,  and  of  the  provisions  of  the  char- 
ter of  1662,  which  was  "  little  more  than  a  re-establishment  of 
the  first  constitution,  with  somewhat  more  explicitness." 

"  This  charter,  of  course,  stands  at  the  head  of  our  laws,  as  the  only 
constitution  which  the  State  possesses ...  It  impowers  the  inhabitants  of 
the  corporation  to  plead,  and  to  be  impleaded,  in  legal  suits,  to  have  a 
seal,  to  choose  yearly  a  governor,  deputy-governor,  and  twelve  assistants, 
to  hold  two  general  assemblies  in  a  year,  to  appoint  and  admit  freemen, 
to  elect  officers,  to  erect  judicatories,  to  ordain  laws,  to  impose  fines,  and 
to  erect  wharves  for  the  purpose  of  drying  fish.  With  no  other  powers 
than  these,  it  would  seem  impossible  that  a  Colony,  or  State,  could  possibly 
exist  in  peace  and  safety  for  so  long  a  time  as  since  the  year  1639.  Such, 
however,  is  the  fact,  and  it  is  owing  to  the  rectitude  of  the  administration 
of  the  government,  and  the  effects  of  the  institutions  established  under  it- 
All  the  defects  in  the  constitution  have  been  supplied  by  practice  ;  and 
the  practical  range  is  as  well  understood  as  though  every  principle  had 
originally  been  reduced  to  writing."2 

"  Steady  habits  "  and  federalism  came  to  be  regarded  as  syn- 
onomous  terms  ;  and  a  distinguished  federal  writer,  in  1805,  in 
"a  serious  remonstrance  to  the  people  of  Connecticut,  against 
changing  their  government,"  reminds  them,  that  "a  new  struc- 
ture or  form  of  government  would  gradually  produce  a  corres- 
pondent change  in  manners,  and  your  steady  sober  habits — the 
theme  of  ridicule,  but  the  real  glory  of  Connecticut — would  be 
lost."3  The  minority  complained  that  u  every  man  who  cherished 
republican  principles,  was  derided  and  abused  as  a  deserter  from 
steady  habits."4 

1  Theodore  Dwight's  Oration  at  New  Haven,  before  the  Society  of  the  Cincinnati, 
July  7,  1801.    pp.  7,  8. 

2  Ibid.  p.  35. 

3  Steady  Habits  Vindicated,  or  a  Ser.ous  Remonstrance  &c.  By  a  Friend  to  the 
Public  Welfare  [David  Daggett,  Esq.]     Hartford,  1805.  p.  14. 

4  Abraham  Bishop's  Oration,  1804.   (p.  15. J) 


24  THE   REPUBLICANS    DEMAND    A    CONSTITUTION. 

Though  leading  republicans  had,  from  time  to  time,  urged  the 
necessity  and  importance  of  forming  a  new  constitution,  to  be 
submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification,  it  was  not  until  the  year 
1804,  that  this  measure  was  incorporated  in  the  republican  plat- 
form. It  was  brought  prominently  into  notice  by  Abraham 
Bishop,  of  New  Haven,  in  an  oration  delivered  in  Hartford,  May 
11th,  1804,  at  a  republican  celebration,  "  in  honor  of  the  election 
of  President  Jefferson,  and  the  peaceable  acquisition  of  Louisi- 


"At  the  Declaration  of  Independence,"  said  Mr.  Bishop,  "  (he  charter 
of  Charles  II.  became  of  no  effect  and  it  was  proper  that  the  people  of 
this  free  State  should,  like  the  people  of  other  free  States,  have  been  con- 
vened to  form  a  constitution.  But  the  Legislature,  which  was  not  em- 
powered for  that  purpose,  and  which  may  repeal  at  pleasure  its  own  laws, 
usurped  the  power  of  enacting,  that  the  form  of  government  contained  in 
the  charter  of  King  Charles  should  be  the  civil  constitution  of  this  State. 
Thus,  by  the  pleasure  of  his  Majesty,  all  the  legislative,  executive,  and 
judicial  powers  of  government  tumbled  into  a  common  mass,  together 
with  the  power  of  raising  armies,  whenever  the  stockholders  of  power 
should  think  best. 

"  This  precise  condition  of  society,  absurd  and  unsafe  as  it  is  in  theory, 
has  proved  far  more  so  in  practice.     At  the  present  moment  all  these 

powers,    TOGETHER    WITH    A    COMPLETE    CONTROL    OF    ELECTIONS,  IS    in 

the  hands  of  seven  lawyers,6  who  have  gained  a  seat  at  the  council  board. 
These  seven  men  virtually  make  and  repeal  laws  as  they  please,  appoint 
all  the  judges,  plead  before  those  judges,  and  constitute  themselves  a  su- 
preme court  of  errors  to  decide  in  the  last  resort  on  the  laws  of  their  own 
making.  To  crown  this  absurdity,  they  have  repealed  a  law  which  pro- 
hibited them  to  plead  before  the  very  court  of  which  they  are  judges." 
(pp.  9,  10.) 

After  pointing  out  various  evils  which,  from  the  republican 
point  of  view,  were  necessary  results  of  "  such  complicated  usur- 
pation of  power,"  he  proposes  (p.  16)  as  the  remedy — 

"That  the  people  shall  be  convened  to  form   a  constitution  which 

5  "Printed  for  the  General  Committee  of  Republicans."  From  Sidney's  Press,  1804, 
8vo,  pp.  24. 

6  In  a  note,  Mr.  Bishop  named  "  Messrs.  Daggett,  [Nathaniel]  Smith,  Chauncey 
Goodrich,  [Jonathan]  Brace,  [John]  Allen,  [William]  Sdmond,  and  [Elizur]  Good- 
rich,— holding  the  same  undefined  powers  which  their  predecessors  have  held,  and 
which  their  successors  shall  hold,  till  we  shall  have  a  constitution." 


REPUBLICAN   DELEGATES   MEET   AT   NEW   HAVEN.  25 

SHALL  SEPARATE  THE  LEGISLATIVE,  EXECUTIVE,  AND  JUDICIAL  POW- 
ERS,— SHALL  DEFINE  THE  QUALIFICATIONS  OF  FREEMEN,  SO  THAT 
LEGISLATORS  SHALL  NOT  TAMPER  WITH  ELECTION  LAWS,  AND  SHALL 
DISTRICT  THE  STATE,  SO  THAT  FREEMEN  MAY  JUDGE  OF  THE  CANDI- 
DATES FOR  THEIR  SUFFRAGES." 

Mr.  Bishop's  oration  was  "  printed  by  the  republican  general 
committee,"  and  distributed  throughout  the  State.  A  writer  in 
the  American  Mercury  (republican)  of  August  2d,  1804,  "  on  the 
subject  of  a  Constitution,"  says,  that  until  the  publication  of  this 
oration,  "  it  was  not  generally  known  that  the  State  of  .Connec- 
ticut had  not  a  constitution,"  and  recommends  that  the  freemen 
in  each  town  should  hold  meetings  for  the  appointment  of  com- 
mittees to  confer  on  a  plan  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  a  con- 
vention. The  (federal)  Courant,  of  August  15th,  notices  this 
recommendation,  remarking  that  "  Abraham  opened  on  this  sub- 
ject on  the  11th  of  May,  and  the  writers  in  the  Mercury  seem 
determined  to  make  the  most  of  it." 

That  discussion  of  this  subject  should  immediately  assume  a 
partisan  character  was  unavoidable,  for  Mr.  Bishop's  political  U 
associates  believed,  with  him,  that  "  a  constitution  would  give  a 
death-blow  to  Connecticut  federalism,  and,  with  it,  to  all  hostility 
against  the  general  government,"7  and  some,  if  not  all,  of  the 
federal  leaders  shared  this  conviction. 

On  the  30th  of  July,  the  Republican  General  Committee  (of 
which  Pierpont  Edwards  was  chairman)  addressed  a  circular  to 
their  party,  stating  that  "  many  very  respectable  republicans  are 
of  the  opinion  that  it  is  high  time  to  speak  to  the  citizens  of  Con- 
necticut, plainly  and  explicitly,  on  the  subject  of  forming  a  con- 
stitution ;  but  this  ought  not  to  be  done  without  the  approbation 
of  the  party  ;"  and  a  general  meeting  was  proposed,  to  be  held  at 
New  Haven  on  the  fifth  Wednesday  (29th)  of  August. 

On  the  day  appointed,  republican  delegates  from  ninety-seven 
towns  assembled  at  the  state-house,  in  New  Haven.  Major  Wil- 
liam Judd,  of  Farmington,  was  chosen  chairman,  and  Henry  W. 
Edwards  and  Lemuel  Whitman,  clerks.  The  meeting  was  held 
with  closed  doors.  It  was  declared,  as  "  the  unanimous  opinion 
of  this  meeting,  that  the  people  of  this  State  are  at  present  with- 
out a  Constitution  of  civil  government,"  and  it  was  thereupon 
resolved,  "  that  it  is  expedient  to  take  measures  preparatory  to 

7  A.  Bishop's  Oration,  page  16. 


26  FEDERALISTS   OPPOSE   A    CONVENTION. 

the  formation  of  a  Constitution,  and  that  a  committee  be  appointed 
to  draft  an  Address  to  the  People  of  this  State,  on  that  subject." 
The  committee  reported  an  address,  which  was  accepted,  and  ten 
thousand  copies  were  ordered  to  be  printed  and  distributed.8 

The  issue  thus  formally  presented  was  made  a  prominent  one 
in  the  fall  election.  The  federalists  denounced  the  project  of  a 
convention  as  revolutionary,  subversive  of  law  and  order,  and  of 
the  "  steady  habits  "  which  had  been  the  boast  of  the  State.  The 
republicans  were  by  no  means  unanimous  in  support  of  the  meas- 
ure, notwithstanding  the  urgent  appeals  of  the  party  press  and 
the  untiring  exertions  of  the  party  managers.  In  September,  just 
before  the  election,  a  federal  reply  to  the  New  Haven  address  was 
printed,  under  the  title  of  "  Count  the  Cost.  [An  Address  to 
the  Freemen  of  Connecticut  on  sundry  political  subjects,  and  par- 
ticularly on  the  proposition  for  a  New  Constitution.  By  Jonathan 
Steadfast."]  The  writer  (David  Daggett)  reviewed  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  New  Haven  meeting,  impugned  the  motives  of  the 
leaders  of  the  movement,  and  presented,  with  remarkable  ability, 
the  arguments  against  the  proposed  change  in  the  form  of  civil 
government.  "  This  project,"  he  said,  "  originates  entirely  in  a 
spirit  of  Jacobinism  :  it  is  a  new  theme  on  which  to  descant  to 
effect  a  revolution  in  Connecticut.  The  object  is,  by  false  asser- 
tions, to  induce  a  belief  that  no  constitution  exists,  and  that 
tyranny  prevails."  Commenting  on  the  course  of  the  republican 
party  for  a  few  years  pievious,  he  comes  down  to  "  Mr.  Bishop's 
oration  on  the  11th  of  May,  declaring  among  other  outrageous 
and  wicked  falsehoods  that  Connecticut  had  no  constitution,"  to 
which  he  opposes  Mr.  Bishop's  declaration  in  1789,  that  "  the 
Constitution  of  Connecticut  is  the  best  in.  the  world, — it  has 
grown  up  with  the  people,  and  it  is  fitted  to  their  condition." 
The  writer  proceeds  to  show  that  "  we  have  a  constitution — a  free 
and  happy  constitution.     It  was  to  our  fathers  like  the  shadow  of 

8  It  was  printed  on  a  small  half-sheet,  in  double  columns,  apparently  from  "  Sidney's 
Press,"  New  Haven.  Soon  afterwards  appeared  a  burlesque,  printed  in  the  same 
style  (and  at  the  same  press,)  professing  to  be  the  address  and  draft  of  a  constitution 
"presented  to  the  Sovereign  People,"  by  "a  Convention  of  Republicans,  styling 
themselves  '  The  Upper-House  of  Delegates  from  ninety-seven  towns/  "  &c.  At  its 
head  stand,  in  large  capitals,  'Liberty!'  'Equality!'  The  proposed  Constitution 
vests  the  Executive  Power  '  in  Three  Consuls  to  be  chosen  for  life  In  the  President  of 
the  United  States, provided  he  be  a  Republican;  if  not,  by  the  Sorer*  ign  People." 


PROCEEDINGS    ACr.YINST   THE    FIVE    JUSTICES.  27 

a  great  rock  in  a  weary  land  ;  it  has  enabled  them  to  transmit  to 
us  a  fair  and  glorious  inheritance  ;  if  we  suffer  revolutionists  to 
rob  us  of  this  birthright  '  then  are  we  bastards  and  not  sons.'  " 
(pp.  10-13).  The  address  closes  with  an  eloquent  and  skilfully 
framed  appeal  to  every  freeman  to  "count  the  cost "  before  act- 
ing with  the  republicans  for  the  proposed  reform. 

The  result  of  the  October  election,  in  an  increased  federal  ma- 
jority, showed  that  the  popular  mind  was  not  yet  prepared  for  a 
radical  change 

When  the  General  Assembly  met,  the  leaders  of  the  dominant 
party,  elated  by  success,  resolved  to  administer  a  signal  rebuke 
to  the  revolutionary  designs  of  the  minority.  Five  justices  of 
the  peace,9  who  had  attended  the  republican  meeting  at  New  Ha- 
ven and  taken  part  in  its  proceedings,  were  cited  to  appear  before 
the  Assembly,  "  to  shew  reasons  why  their  commissions  should 
not  be  revoked,"  since  "  it  is  improper,"  as  the  preamble  of  the 
resolution  sets  forth,  "to  entrust  the  administration  of  the  laws 
to  persons  who  hold  and  teach  that  the  government  is  an  usurpa- 
tion." Asher  Miller  and  David  Daggett  were  appointed  mana- 
gers on  the  part  of  the  State,  for  the  prosecution,  and  Pierpont 
Edwards,  by  permission  of  the  Assembly,  appeared  as  counsel  for 
the  respondents.  The  case  was  heard  by  the  two  Houses  in  joint 
convention,  October  30th.  Mr.  Edwards  argued  in  defence  of 
the  Justices.  Mr.  Daggett  replied  in  behalf  of  the  State.  He 
reviewed  the  proceedings  and  the  published  address  of  the  New 
Haven  meeting,  and,  succinctly  tracing  the  governmental  history 
of  the  two  colonies  and  the  State,  from  the  adoption  of  the  com- 
pact of  1639,  and  the  foundation  of  civil  polity  in  New  Haven,  he 
aimed  to  "  demonstrate,  that  the  people  of  Connecticut,  not  only 
are  not  without  a  constitution,  but  are  possessed  of  one  made  by 
the  people.,  in  a  sense  not  applicable  to  any  other  people,"  and 
that  theirs  was,  in  fact,  "  the  only  government  ever  formed  upon 
entirely  popular  principles."  The  original  compact,  he  argued, 
"  contains  the  vital  principles  of  our  present  government." 

"  The  people,  in  1639,  vested  the  general  court,  or  assembly,  with  the 
power  of  making  and  repealing  all  laws,  and  of  dealing  in  all  other  matters, 

9 Major  William  Judd  of  Farmington  (who  was  Chairman  of  the  New  Haven 
meeting),  Jabez  H.  Tomlinson  of  Stratford,  Agur  Judson  of  Huntington,  Hezekiah 
Goodrich  of  Chatham,  and  Nathaniel  Manning  of  Windham. 


28  THE    ASSEMBLY   REVOKES  THEIR    COMMISSIONS. 

except  the  choice  of  magistrates.  And  might  not  the  people  grant  this 
power?  This  is  now  our  Constitution — our  fundamental  regulation 
by  which  power  is  exercised.  Who  then  shall  complain  ?  Surely  not 
those  who  reiterate  with  every  breath,  that  the  people  are  the  source  of 
all  power.  If  the  people  of  Connecticut  made  this  Constitution,  I  intreat 
those  who  advocate  the  right  of  the  people  to  make  Constitutions,  to  per- 
mit the  people  still  to  enjoy  it."  (p.  15.) 

He  showed  the  relation  of  the  compact  of  1639  to  the  charter  of 
1662,  and  the  acceptance  of  the  charter  by  the  people,  not  only  by 
their  action  on  its  first  receipt,  but  by  the  re-establishment  of  its 
authority  after  the  revolution  of  1689.  The  general  assembly 
not  only  declared,  in  1776,  that  "  the  form  of  government  should 
continue  to  he  as  established  by  charter,"  but  prescribed  (by  act  of 
May,  1777)  the  form  of  oath  to  be  taken  by  freemen,  by  which 
they  were  bound  "  to  be  true  and  faithful  to  the  Governor  and 
Company  of  this  State,  and  the  Constitution  and  government  there- 
of." This  oath,  substantially,  had  been  taken  by  all  admitted  free- 
men, and,  since  May,  1777,  "  more  citizens  have  thus  sworn  to 
support  our  Constitution  than  there  are  now  taxable  males  in  the 
State."10 

The  New  Haven  address  was  not — he  argued — "  a  decent  ex- 
pression of  opinion,"  merely  ;  it  was  "  an  outrage  upon  decency  "; 
and  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Legislature  "  to  withdraw  from  men 
who  denounce  the  government,  the  power  of  exercising  its  au- 
thority." 

On  the  day  after  the  hearing,  the  governor  and  council  unani- 
mously passed  a  bill  revoking  the  commissions  of  the  offending 
justices,  and  in  this  bill  the  house  of  representatives  concurred  by 
a  majority  of  67, — yeas,  123,  nays,  56. 

Major  Judd,  who  was  a  lawyer  by  profession,  prepared  an  argu- 
ment in  defence  of  himself  and  his  associates,  but  soon  after  his 
arrival  in  New  Haven — where  the  general  assembly  was  in  session 

10.  Mr.  Daggett's  Argument,  before  the  General  Assembly,  in  the  Case  of  certain 
Justices  of  the  Peace.  To  which  is  prefixed  a  brief  History  of  the  Proceedings  of  the 
Assembly  [and  a  copy  of  the  New  Haven  Address].  New  Haven,  1804.  8vo.  pp.  30. 
The  cause  of  the  prosecution  could  not  have  been  intrusted  to  better  bands.  Mr. 
Daggett's  argument  was  very  ingeniously  framed,  and  presented  with  great  ability. 
But  his  view  of  the  case  was  naturally  partisan  rather  than  judicial.  After  he  became 
Chief  Justice,  he  did  not  speak  of  the  government  under  the  charter  with  the  same 
unqualified  eulogy.  The  old  constitution,  he  then  admitted,  "gave  very  extensive 
powers  to  the  legislature,  and  left  too  much  (Tor  it  left  everything  almost,)  to  their  will." 
(Starr  v.  Pease,  8  Conn.  Rep.,  548). 


MAJOR   JUDD'S    ADDRESS.       A    QUESTION    OF   ORDER.  29 

— he  was  taken  ill,  and  was  unable  to  appear  on  the  day  assigned 
for  the  hearing  before  the  two  houses.  With  the  help  of  his 
friends,  his  ubrief,  or  summary  of  defence"  was  hurried  through  the 
press,  but  he  died  before  the  last  sheet  was  printed,  Nov.  18th, 
1804.  The  next  day,  his  "  Address  to  the  People  of  the  State  of 
Connecticut,  on  the  subject  of  the  removal  of  himself  and  four 
other  Justices  from  office,"  was  published  "  for  the  general  com- 
mittee of  Republicans." 1 

While  the  bill  for  revoking  the  commissions  was  under  discus- 
sion in  the  house  of  representatives,  Mr.  Samuel  Hart  (a  mem- 
ber for  Berlin)  ventured  the  suggestion  that "  arguments  against 
it  would  be  unavailing,  when  there  was  the  disposition  and  the 
ability  to  pass  it."  This  was  construed  by  the  federal  majority  as 
an  imputation  on  the  justice  and  impartiality  of  the  House,  and 
the  offender  was  ordered  to  be  reprimanded  by  the  Speaker. 
When  called  upon  to  rise  in  his  place  to  receive  the  prescribed 
censure,  Mr.  Hart  submitted  a  novel  question  of  order,  by  asking 
"  if  there  was  any  rule  of  the  House  which  obliged  a  member  to 
rise,  for  a  reprimand  ?"  After  some  discussion,  the  Speaker  (Hon. 
Timothy  Pitkin)  gave  a  decision  in  the  affirmative.  An  appeal 
was  taken,  and  the  House  sustained  the  opinion  of  the  chair. 
Thereupon,  Mr.  Hart  rose,  and  the  reprimand  was  given  and  re- 
ceived in  due  form.  The  "  dilatory  motion  "  and  the  temporary 
embarrassment  of  the  majority  and  of  the  Speaker  blunted  the 
edge  of  the  censure  and  occasioned  great  glee  to  the  republicans. 

In  the  spring  election  of  1805,  the  question  of  anew  constitution 
was  again  the  main  issue,  and  again  the  friends  of  "  steady  habits  " 
were  successful.'2  The  measure  continued  to  hold  a  prominent 
place  in  the  republican  platform,  but,  for  several  succeeding  years 
with  decreasing  probability  of  attainment.  During  the  adminis- 
tration of  President  Madison,  it  was  almost  lost  sight  of,  in  the 
discussion  of  matters  of  more  immediate  and  exciting  interest. 
But  opposition  to  the  existing  order  of  things  in  Connecticut  was 
gaining  strength  and  was  no  longer  confined  to  the  so-called  dem- 
ocratic party  ;  and  when,  in  the  spring  of  1817,  the  contest  was 
actively  renewed,  the  friends  of  new  measures  were  so  strong  in 
numbers,  position,  and  influence,  that  success   became   nearly 

1  Sidney's  Press  [New  Haven].  8vo.  pp.  24. 

2  Just  before  this  election  was  published  a  pamphlet,  entitled   "  Steady  Habits  Vin- 
dicated," etc.    (Hartford,  1805).    8vo.  pp.  20.     Attributed  to  David  Daggett. 


30  ECCLESIASTICAL   CONSTITUTION    OF   THE   COLONY. 

certain.  The  "  standing  order,"  in  church  and  state,  had  now  to 
encounter  a  determined  sectarian  as  well  as  apolitical  opposition. 
To  understand  the  charter  and  extent  of  this  opposition,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  review,  briefly,  the  ecclesiastical  constitution  of 
the  colony  and  state.  The  foundation  of  this  was  the  act  of  October, 
1708, 3  approving  the  confession  of  faith,  heads  of  agreement, 
and  regulations  in  the  administration  of  discipline  agreed  to  by 
the  synod  at  Saybrook,  and  enacting  that  all  churches  thus  united 
in  doctrine,  worship,  and  discipline, should  be  "owned  and  ac- 
knowledged established  by  law."  A  proviso  assured  to  societies 
and  churches  which  "  soberly  differ  or  dissent "  from  the  estab- 
lished churches,  and  which  were  allowed  by  law,  the  right  of 
"  exercising  worship  and  discipline  in  their  own  way  and  accord- 
ing to  their  consciences."  But  dissenters  were  not  thereby  re- 
lieved of  their  obligations  to  pay  their  proportion  of  town  taxes 
for  the  support  of  the  established  ministry.  By  a  colony  law 
(May,  1697)  every  town  and  society  was  required  to  provide,  an- 
fnually,  for  the  maintenance  of  their  minister,  in  accordance  with 
the  agreement  made  at  settlement,  by  a  tax  levied  "  on  the  sev- 
eral inhabitants  according  to  their  respective  estates."4  A  min- 
ister settled  by  the  major  part  of  the  householders  of  a  town  or 
society  was,  by  a  law  passed  in  1699,  to  be  accounted  the  lawful 
minister  of  such  town  or  society,  and  the  agreement  made  with 
him  was  declared  to  be  Binding  on  "  all  of  such  town."5  And 
when  in  1708,  the  general  assembly,  by  an  act  "  for  the  ease  of 
such  as  soberly  dissent  from  the  way  of  worship  and  ministry  es- 
tablished by  the  ancient  laws  of  this  government  and  still  con- 
tinuing," extended  to  all  qualified  dissenters  in  the  colony,  the 
same  liberty  and  privileges  granted  by  the  Toleration  Act  of 
William  and  Mary,  it  was-with  the  special  proviso,  that  this  should 
not  be  construed  "  to  the  excusing  of  any  person  from  paying  any 
such  minister  or  town  dues  as  are  now  or  shall  be  hereafter  due 
from  them."6 

In  1727,  an  act  was  passed  directing  that  all  taxes  collected  for 
support  of  the  ministry,  from  members  of  the  church  of  England, 
should  be  paid  to  the  settled  ministers  of  that  church  ;  and  if,  in 
any  parish,  the  amount  so  paid  should  be  insufficient  to  support 

8  Col.  Records,  v.  87.  4  Col.  Records,  iv.  198. 

&  Ibid.,  iv.  316.  •  Ibid.,  v.  50. 


LEGAL   RIGHTS   OF   DISSENTERS.  31 

the  minister,  the  members  of  his  church  were  authorized  to  tax 
themselves  for  the  deficiency.7  Two  years  afterwards,  similar 
privileges  were  granted  to  Quakers  and  Baptists.8 

At  the  revision  of  the  laws  in  1784,  the  act  of  1708,  recogniz- 
ing "established  churches"  was  omitted  ;  and  in  October,  1791, 
the  general  assembly  passed  "  an  act  securing  equal  rights  and 
privileges  to  Christians  of  every  denomination,  in  this  State." 
Every  dissenter  who  should  lodge  with  the  clerk  of  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal society  a  certificate  of  having  joined  himself  to  any  other  than 
the  established  denomination,  was,  "  so  long  as  he  shall  continue 
ordinarily  to  attend  on  the  worship  and  ministry  in  the  church  or 
congregation  to  which  he  has  chosen  to  belong,"  exempted  from 
the  payment  of  society  taxes  for  the  support  of  public  worship  or 
the  ministry.  And  all  churches  and  congregations  of  dissenters, 
so  formed,  were  empowered  to  tax  themselves  for  maintaining 
their  ministers,  building  meeting-houses,  etc.9 

This — so  thought  Judge  Swift — "  levelled  all  distinctions,  and 
placed  all  denominations  of  Christians  equally  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  law."  l  °  It  was  not,  however,  so  favorably  regarded 
by  the  dissenters.  They  complained  that  "  when  a  person  at- 
tends on  public  worship  in  no  religious  society,"  he  should  be 
taxed  in  the  located  society  in  which  he  lives.  The  located  socie- 
ties had  a  right  by  law  to  tax  all  within  their  limits  who  did  not 
lodge  the  prescribed  certificates,  and  this  lodging  of  certificates — 
though  it  was  considered  by  the  general  assembly  as  "  nothing 
more  than  an  act  of  the  dissenter  to  inform  the  located  society  that 
he  does  not  belong  to  them,"  was  "  deemed  by  some  of  the  dissen- 
ters themselves,  a  mark  of  degradation  "  or  confession  of  inferi- 
ority. While  the  law  professed  to  secure  equal  rights  and  priv- 
ileges to  all  denominations  of  Christians,  it  maintained,  in  fact, 
a  distinction  between  the  located  or  established  and  the  dissenting 
societies.  Moreover,  it  was  objected,  these  were  differences  of 
opinion  as  to  the  construction  of  the  law.  "  As  it  was  always  in 
the  power  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  located  societies,  to  try  the 
legality  of  the  certificates  of  dissent,"  dissenters  had  sometimes — 
as  Judge  Swift  admits, — "  been  subjected  to  hard  and  rigorous 

1  Col.  Kec.  (MSS.)  vol.  v.,  p.  5S7.  8  Ibid.,  pp.  68S,  704. 

9  Revised  Statutes,  1808,  p.  575.  10  Swift's  System  (1795),  i.  144. 


32  THE   DISSENTERS    COMPLAIN. 

usage.  Courts  and  juries  had  usually  been  composed  of  what 
was  considered  the  standing  church,  and  they  had  frequently 
practised  such  quibbles  and  finesse  with  respect  to  the  forms  of 
certificates  and  the  nature  of  dissenting  congregations,  as  to  de- 
feat the  benevolent  intentions  of  the  law."2 

The  well-known  Baptist  elder,  John  Leland,  in  a  pamphlet  pub- 
lished soon  after  the  enactment  of  the  "  Certificate  Law  "  of  1791, 
denounced  it,  as  founded  on  the  principle  "  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
ail  men  to  support  the  gospel  and  worship  of  God,"  and  that  "  hu- 
man legislatures  have  the  right  to  force  them  to  do  so."  "  The 
certificate  that  a  dissenter  produces  to  the  society-clerk,  must  be 
signed  by  some  officer  of  the  dissenting  church,  and  such  church 
must  be  protestant-ehristian ;  -for  heathens,  deists,  Jews,  and  pa- 
pists, are  not  indulged  in  the  certificate  law ;  all  of  them,  as  well 
as  Turks,  must  therefore  be  taxed  to  the  standing  order,  though 
they  never  go  among  thorn  or  know  where  the  meeting-house  is.3 

Another  ground  of  complaint  was  found  in  the  peculiar  favor 
manifested  to  Yale  College,  which,  from  its  foundation  in  1702, 
had  been  under  the  exclusive  direction  and  control  of  the  congre- 
gationalists.  The  special  privileges  secured  to  the  college  by 
charter,  and  the  repeated  grants  which  had  been  made  to  it  by  the 
general  assembly,  were  regarded  by  the  dissenters  as  inconsistent 
with  the  concession  of"  equal  rights  and  privileges  to  Christians 
of  every  denomination." 

The  Baptists  and  Methodists  had  repeatedly  addressed  them- 
selves to  the  general  assembly,  for  relief  from  the  operation  of 
laws  which  they  regarded  as  oppressive,  and  which  subjected 
them  to  the  compulsory  payment  of  taxes  for.  the  support  of  any 
ministry — even  of  their  own  denomination.  They  demanded  that 
"  legal  religion  "  should  be  abolished,  and  "  the  adulterous  union 
of  Church  and  State,  forever  dissolved." 

The  Episcopalians  were  seeking  aid  from  the  State  for  the  en- 
dowment of  their  Academy  in  Cheshire  and  for  the  establishment 
of  a  fund  for  the  support  of  a  bishop.  In  the  former  object  they 
had  been  partially  successful,  obtaining  from  the  general  assembly, 

2  Ibid.,  146,  147. 

8  "The  Rights  of  Conscience  inalienable,  And  therefore  Religious  Opinions  not 
cognizable  by  Law  ;  or,  The  High-flying  Churchman,  Stript  of  her  Legal  Robe,  Ap- 
pears a  Yaho  — By  John  Leland."  New  London,  1791  (8vo,  p.  30).  It  was  reprinted, 
with  other  tracts,  by  Charles  Holt,  New  London,  1802,  under  the  title  of  "  The  Con- 
necticut Dissenter's  Strong-Box  :  No.  I.  Containing  The  high-flying  churchman,  &c." 


THE   BISHOP'S    FUND  ;   THE   PHOENIX   BANK   BONUS.  33 

in  October,  1802,  license  to  raise  15,000  dollars  by  a  lottery.  An 
act  incorporating  trustees  of  a  Bishop's  Fund  was  granted  in  1799, 
but  this  fund,  derived  from  private  contributions,  grew  so  slowly 
that  in  May,  1817,  it  hardly  exceeded  6000  dollars.  When  the 
charter  of  the  Phoenix  Bank  at  Hartford  was  granted  (May,  1814), 
the  State  exacted  a  bonus  of  50,000  dollars.  The  trustees  of  the 
Bishop's  Fund  alleged  that  a  portion  of  this  bonus  had  been  ap- 
propriated by  the  petitioners  for  the  bank,  to  the  benefit  of  the 
fund,  and  they  complained  that  it  was  unfairly  withheld  from  the 
trustees,  while  an  appropriation  of  20,000  dollars,  from  the  same 
bonus,  was  granted  to  Yale  College.4  Another  ground  of  dissatis- 
faction was  the  repeated  refusal  of  the  legislature  to  confer  the 
powers  and  privileges  of  a  college,  on  the  Academy  at  Cheshire, 
or  to  charter  a  new  Episcopal  College  of  Connecticut.  It  is  not 
surprising  that  the  federal  majority — members  of  the  "  standing 
order,"  and  warmly  attached  to  the  school  of  the  prophets  at  New 
Haven — hesitated  to  contribute  from  the  State  treasury  to  the 
maintenance  of  a  bishop  or  for  the  establishment  of  an  episcopal 
rival  to  Yale.  It  is  not  more  strange  that  the  episcopalians, 
as  a  body,  became  associated  with  the  republican  party,  from 
which  they  received  assurances  of  support.5 

In  October,  1816,  as  a  measure  of  conciliation  and  compromise, 
the  general  assembly  passed  "  An  Act  for  the  support  of  Literature 
and  Religion,"  by  which  the  balances  due  the  State  from  the 
United  States,  on  account  of  disbursements  for  the  general 
defence  in  the  war  with  Great  Britain,  were  appropriated  as  fol- 
lows :  one-third  to  the  Presbyterian  or  Congregational  societies, 
to  be  divided  in  proportion  to  their  rate-lists,  for  the  support  of 
the  gospel ;  one-seventh  to  the  trustees  of  the  Bishop's  Fund,  "  for 
/\  he  use  and  benefit  of  the  Episcopalian  denomination  of  Chris- 
tians ;"  one-eighth  to  the  Baptists'  trustees,  and  one-twelfth  to  the 
Methodists'  trustees,  for  the  use  of  their  denominations  respec- 
tively ;  one-seventh  to  Yale  College  ;  and  the  balance,  a  little 

4  Eleven  years  afterwards  (1825),  the  State  granted  to  the  Trustees  of  the  Bishop's 
Fund,  $7,064.  88,  in  commutation  of  their  claim  on  the  Phoenix  Bank  bonus. 

5  The  Rev.  Dr.  Shelton  (rector  of  St.  Paul's,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,)  in  a  memoir  of  his 
father,  the  Rev.  Philo  Shelton,  of  Fairfield  (1785-1825),  thus  states  thepositiou  of  the 
Episcopal  church  in  Connecticut,  in  the  contest  which  preceded  the  political  revolution 
of  1817  :  "  When  the  Episcopal  Church  petitioned  the  Legislature  in  vain,  as  she  did 
for  a  series  of  years,  for  a  charter  to  a  college,  he,  with  others  of  his  brethren,  proposed 
a  union  with  a  political  party,  then  in  a  minority,  to  secure  what  he  regarded  a  just  right. 
And  the  first  fruit  of  the  union  was  the  charter  of  Trinity  [Washington]  College, 

5 


34  A  TOLERATION   TICKET   NOMINATED. 

more  than  one-sixth  of  the  whole,  to  remain  in  the  State  treas- 
ury.6 As  might  have  been  anticipated,  this  measure  pleased  no- 
body, but  tended  rather  to  promote  than  to  diminish  opposition 
to  the  established  order  in  State  and  church.  The  federalists 
and  Congregationalists  felt  that  too  much  had  been  conceded. 
The  minor  sects  thought  the  division  unjust,  and,  even  if  the  pro- 
visions of  the  act  in  their  behalf  had  been  more  liberal,  they  could 
not,  consistently  with  their  past  professions,  approve  the  appro- 
priation to  the  support  of  the  ministry,  of  a  fund  originally  raised 
by  taxation.  Some  of  the  Methodists  at  first  refused  to  receive 
their  share  of  the  fund.  The  Baptists'  trustees  did  not  accept 
theirs,  till  June,  lb20.  In  February,  1818,  the  trustees  of  the 
Methodists — a  majority  of  the  board,  it  may  be  remarked,  were 
federalists — voted  that,  though  that  denomination  had  not  been 
granted  their  full  proportion  of  the  money  to  be  distributed  by 
the  act,  yet,  not  thinking  it  right  that  the  appropriation  should 
remain  useless,  they  would  receive  it  from  the  treasury.  This 
action,  however,  was  strongly  censured  by  many  members  of  the 
denomination  in  Connecticut. 

In  January,  1816,  "  a  meeting  of  citizens,  from  the  various 
parts  of  the  State"  was  held  at  New  Haven,  for  the  purpose  of 
nominating  a  governor  and  lieutenant-governor,  and  to  cement 
an  alliance  between  the  republicans  and  such  of  the  federalists 
as  were  opposed  to  the  "standing  order"  and  were  friends  of 
"toleration  and  reform."  The  nomination  of  Oliver  Wolcott  for 
governor,  and  of  Jonathan  Ingersoll  for  lieutenant-governor, 
was  unanimously  agreed  on,  "  as  the  one  most  likely  to  produce 
that  concord  and  harmony  among  parties  which  have  too  long, 
and  without  any  real  diversity  of  interests,  been  disturbed,  and 

Hartford.  He  was  one  of  a  small  number  of  clergymen  who  decided  on  this  measure, 
and  were  instrumental  of  carrying- it  into  effect;  and  it  resulted  in  a  change  in  the 
politics  of  the  State  which  has  never  yet  been  reversed." — Sprague's  Annals  of  the 
Am.  Pulpit  (Episc),  v.  351. 

6  The  amount  received  from  the  U.  S.,  before  Nov.,  1817.  was  $61,500.  This  was 
apportioned  as  follows : 

To  Congregational  Societies $20,500.00 

Trustees  of  Bishop's  Fund 8,785.71 

Baptists'  Trustees 7,687.50 

Methodists'  Trustees 5,125.00 

Yale  College 8,785.71 

Balance  unappropriated 10,616.08 


WOLCOTT   AND    INGERSOLL.  35 

which  every  honest  man  must  earnestly  desire  to  see  restored."7 
Oliver  Wolcott,  in  former  days,  had  been  a  federal  of  the  fede- 
rals. He  had  opposed  the  re-nomination  of  John  Adams  because 
he  believed  that  "  we  should  never  find  ourselves  in  the  straight 
road  of  federalism  while  Mr.  Adams  is  president."8  While  sec- 
retary of  the  treasury,  and  after  his  resignation  of  that  office  in 
1800,  he  had  been  charged  by  the  anti-federals,  not  merely  with 
mal-administration  and  evil  counsel,  but  with  downright  crime, 
and,  as  he  on  one  occasion  complained,  he  had  encountered  some 
of  u  the  most  flagitious  and  profligate  devices  of  party  malice."9 
But  retirement  from  political  life  and  absence  for  fourteen  years 
from  Connecticut  had  given  old-time  resentments  time  to  cool. 
"  There  were  few  men  in  this  country" — as  republican  writers 
now  truly  averred —  "  who  would  more  advantageously  bear  a 
scrutiny  of  character  as  to  moral  qualifications,  than  Oliver  Wol- 
cott."  Moreover,  "  he  was  opposed  to  the  Hartford  convention  ; 
like  Washington  was  a  friend  to  the  Union,  a  foe  to  rebellion  ; 
with  mild  means  resisted  bigotry,  with  a  glowing  heart  favored 
Toleration  ";,u  and  as,  with  all  this,  "  he  had  for  the  last  eight  or 
ten  years  approved  of  the  general  system  of  measures  adopted 
and  pursued  by  the  government  of  the  United  States,"11  he  was 
deemed  an  available  candidate  of  the  coalition.  The  Mercury — 
in  which,  fifteen  years  before,  he  had  been  accused  of  setting  fire 
to  the  buildings  of  the  War  and  Treasury  departments  for  the 
purpose  of  destroying  the  evidence  of  his  frauds  and  defalcation1 
— cordially  supported  his  nomination,  and  challenged  the  feder- 
alists "  to  produce  a  single  instance,  throughout  his  whole  life, 
of  impurity  of  motives  in  the  discharge  of  his  public  service."2 

Jonathan  Ingersoll,  an  eminent  lawyer  of  New  Haven,  had 
been  a  member  of  the  council,  1792-1798,  and  a  judge  of  the 
superior  court,  1798-1801,  and  from  1811  to  1816.  He  was  a 
federalist,  in  good  standing  with  his  party,  but  his  nomination  as 


7  Amer.  Mercury  (republ.),  27th  Feb.,  1816.  The  Hartford  Times,  25th  Feb.,  spoke 
of  the  new  "American  Toleration  and  Reform"  ticket,  as  one  "  agreed  upon  with  re- 
spect [inter  alia]  to  the  conciliation  of  political  parties,  the  hai'mony  of  the  different  re- 
ligious denominations,  and  subsidence  of  the  spirit  of  intolerance." 

8  Ante,  p.  19.  9  Admin,  of  Wash,  and  Adams,  ii.  482. 

10  N.  Haven  Register,  and  Am.  Mercury,  11th  Feb.,  1817. 

11  "Aristides,"  in  Am.  Mercury,  26th  March,  1816. 

1  Am.  Mercury,  Feb.  5th  and  25th,  1801.  2  Id.,  25th  March,  1816. 


36  TOLERATION   TICKET    SUCCESSFUL. 

lieutenant-governor  was  made  a  condition  of  the  support  of  the 
new  ticket  by  Episcopalians.  Judge  Ingersoll  was  a  prominent 
member  of  that  church,  and  the  senior  trustee  of  the  Bishop's 
Fund.  "  It  was  deemed  expedient,  by  giving  the  Episcopalians  a 
fair  opportunity  to  unite  with  the  republicans,  to  attempt  to 
effect  such  a  change  in  the  government  as  should  afford  some 
prospect  of  satisfaction  to  their  united  demands."3 

The  new  ticket — first  called  "  American,"  then  "American  and 
Toleration" — was  not  successful  in  the  spring  election  of  1816  ; 
but  the  diminished  majority  of  the  federal  candidates  fore- 
shadowed the  coming  revolution.  Judge  Ingersoll,  by  the  help 
of  federal  votes,  was  chosen  lieutenant-governor,  by  a  majority 
of  1,453.     Mr.  Wolcott  received  10,170  votes,  out  of  21 ,759. 

The  next  year,  the  same  nominations,  "  adopted  at  a  general 
meeting  of  the  friends  of  toleration,"  at  New  Haven,  in  October, 
were  again  submitted  to  the  freemen  ;  and  now,  Oliver  Wolcott 
was  elected  governor  by  a  majority  of  about  6004,  over  the  fed- 
eral incumbent,  John  Cotton  Smith.  Lieutenant-governor  Inger- 
soll, receiving  the  votes  of  both  parties,  was  re-elected  without 
opposition,  and  in  the  house  of  representatives  there  was  a  de- 
cided "Toleration"  majority.  The  council — chosen  from  the 
nominations  made  in  October  preceding — was  still  federal,  and 
without  its  concurrence,  the  radical  changes  to  which  republicans 
and  tolerationists  were  mutually  pledged,  could  not  be  effected. 

The  first  act  passed  by  the  general  assembly  of  1817,  was  one 
"  securing  equal  rights,  powers,  and  privileges,  to  Christians  of 
every  denomination  in  this  State."  It  provided  that  any  person, 
separating  from  any  society  or  denomination  of  Christians  to  join 
any  other,  should,  on  lodging  a  certificate  of  the  fact,  with  the 
town  clerk,  be  exempted  from  taxation  from  any  future  expenses 
of  the  society  from  which  he  withdrew.  Every  society  of  Chris- 
tians was  authorized  to  lay  taxes  for  the  maintenance  of  minis- 

8  "Aristides,"  26th  March,  1816,  and  "Episcopalian/'  in  Am.  Mercury,  12th  March. 

*  The  legal  returns  gave  : 

Wolcott, 13,655 

Smith, 13,119 

Scattering, 202  13,321 

Wolcott's  majority 334 

But  the  correction  of  some  errors  in  the  returns  increased  this  majority — as  the  fed- 
eralists conceded — to  about  600. 


REPEAL   OP   THE   STAND-UP   LAW.  37 

ters,  the  support  of  public  worship,  for  building  meeting  houses, 
&c,  and  all  Christian  societies  were  to  "have  and  enjoy  the  same 
and  equal  powers,  rights  and  privileges,  to  every  effect,  intent, 
and  purpose,  whatever." 

Even  this  concession  was  not  sufficiently  explicit  and  broad  to 
satisfy  the  minor  sects  ;  and  the  next  year,  another  bill  was  intro- 
duced, for  more  effectually  securing  equal  rights  and  privileges  to 
all  denominations.  On  the  question  of  referring  this  bill  to  a 
committee,  Mr.  (and  the  Rev.)  Daniel  Burrows,  of  Hebron,  said : 
"  It  was  stated  that  the  law  of  1817  was  designed  to  extend  equal 
rights  to  all  religious  denominations ;  but  it  did  not  change  the 
tiling  ;  it  did  not  effect  the  object  or  answer  the  design  of  the  ag- 
grieved party.  It  contained  no  declaration  which  would  enable 
them  to  have  recourse  to  the  same  measures  that  were  enjoyed  by 
the  standing  order."5 

In  October,  1816,  the  complete  success  of  the  Toleration  party 
was  assured  by  placing  in  nomination  their  ticket  for  Assistants. 
In  the  general  assembly,  they  had  again  a  majority  of  nearly  two 
to  one.  At  this  session,  the  obnoxious  "  Stand-up  Law  "  was  re- 
pealed. This  law  was  enacted  in  October,  1801,  to  regulate  the 
manner  of  voting  in  freemen's  meetings.  It  directed  that  in  all 
elections  by  ballot,  the  freemen  should  "  lay  their  ballots  on  the 
lid  "  of  the  box,  "  and  the  presiding  officer  on  being  satisfied  that 
the  ballots  given  in  are  single,  shall  put  them  into  the  box,"  &c. 
And  further,  that  when  the  freemen  were  to  vote  for  persons  to 
stand  in  nomination  for  assistants  or  representatives  in  congress, 
they  were  first  to  be  seated,  and  when  any  name  was  proposed 
for  nomination,  those  who  would  vote  for  the  person  so  named, 
should  signify  it  by  rising.  If  the  accommodations  would  not 
admit  of  seating  all  the  freeman  present,  the  vote  might  be  taken 
"  by  holding  up  the  hand."  Every  freeman  was  to  be  provided 
with  a  number  of  slips  of  paper  "  equal  to  the  number  which  are 
by  law  to  stand  in  nomination  "  ;  and,  at  each  time  of  his  voting, 
by  rising  or  show  of  hand,  he  was  to  "  drop  one  of  the  said  slips 
of  paper,  that  he  may  not  be  exposed  through  mistake  to  vote  for 
more  than  the  prescribed  number."6  This  law — which  deprived 
the  freemen  of  the  privilege  of  secret  ballot — had  become  unpopu- 
lar, even  among  the  federalists.     To  the  republicans  and  their 

5  Debates,  in  Conn.  Courant.  6  Rev.  Statutes,  1808,  pp.  251,  252. 


38 

"  toleration  "  allies  it  was  odious  in  the  extreme.7  It  had  been  a 
favorite  subject  of  animadversion,  with  their  orators  and  party 
press.  It  was  one  of  the  few  real  grievances  of  which  the  freemen 
had  to  complain,  and  contributed,  perhaps  as  much  as  any  other, 
to  bring  about  the  political  revolution  of  which  began  in  1817. 

In  April,  1818,  the  revolution  was  consummated,  by  the  re- 
election of  Wolcott  and  Ingersoll,  the  election  of  eight  new  assist- 
ants,8 and  an  anti-federal  majority  in  the  house  of  representatives. 

In  this  election,  the  question  of  a  new  Constitution  was  a  recog- 
nized— in  fact,  the  main  issue.  During  the  winter  of  1817-18 
and  the  following  spring,  town  meetings  had  been  held  in  many 
of  the  towns,  for  expression  of  the  views  of  the  freemen,  and  to 
instruct  their  representatives  in  the  general  assembly  to  vote  for 
calling  a  convention  to  frame  a  constitution.  The  "  American 
and  Toleration  Ticket "  of  1816,  and  "  Toleration  and  Reform 
Ticket "  of  1817 — this  year  appeared  under  the  name  of  "  Con- 
stitution and  Reform.""  The  necessity  in  a  change  in  the  form  of 
civil  government  had  been  argued,  with  much  ability,  by  writers  in 
the  leading  republican  newspapers,  and  in  pamphlets  which  were 
liberally  distributed  throughout  the  State.9  The  American  Mercury, 
in  the  first  number  of  the  new  year,  began  the  publication  of  a 
series  of  articles  on  "  The  Constitution,"  addressed"  to  the  People 
of  Connecticut,"  on  the  benefits  to  be  anticipated  from  the  proposed 
reform  and  to  answer  objections  which  were  urged  against  it. 
The  writer,  in  his  first  communication,  admits  that,  in  past  years, 
"  the  minds  of  the  community  had  seemed  generally  to  revolt  against 
opening  the  question,  choosing  rather  to  endure  existing  imper- 
fections than  to  throw  aside  the  present  system, — lest  a  more  perfect 
one  might  not  be  adopted."  But  now,  it  appeared  that  all  such 
apprehensions  were  removed,  and  "  the  people  were  agreed,  al- 
most without  dissension,  that  some  changes  were  expedient  to 


7  The  republicans  ascribed  the  authorship  of  this  law  to  Lieut.  Governor  (afterwards 
Governor)  Treadwell.  See  "  Aristides,"  on  Conn.  Politics,  in  the  American  Mercury, 
12  March,  1816. 

8  Wm.  Bristol,  Elijah  Boardmen,  David  Tomlinson,  Sylvester  Wells,  John  S.  Peters, 
James  Lanman,  Enoch  Burrows,  and  Peter  Webb.  Four  of  the  old  assistants  were 
re-elected :     Jona.  Brace,  Fred.  Wolcott,  Asa  Chapman,  and  Elias  Perkins. 

9  One  of  tbese,  on  "  The  Politics  of  Connecticut :  by  a  Federal  Republican" 
[George  H.  Ricbards,  of  New  London],  was  received  with  much  favor  by  the  repub- 
licans, and  widely  circulated. 


NEW   HAVEN   FEDERALISTS    FAVOR    REFORM. 

adopt  our  government  to  the  principles  of  a  more  enlightened  age 
than  that  in  which  it  was  formed,  and  to  reconcile  it  with  tliV 
institutions  which  surround  us." 

While  the  republicans  and  tolerationists  were  unanimous  in 
support  of  the  measure,  the  federalists  were  not  united  in  opposi- 
tion. In  several  towns,  prominent  members  of  the  federal  party 
concurred  in  the  vote  instructing  their  representatives,  or  avowed 
themselves  in  favor  of  a  new  constitution.  The  jealous  rivalry 
between  the  two  capitals — which  dates  from  the  union  of  the 
colonies — was  not  without  its  influence.  The  modern  fiction  of 
a  "  compact"  by  which  the  enjoyment  of  a  state  house  and  bien- 
nial election-parades  was  guaranteed  to  New  Haven  forever,  does 
not  appear  to  have  yet  gained  even  local  credence ;  but  it  was 
an  avowed  purpose  of  the  Tolerationists,  to  abolish  the  October 
session  and  provide  for  the  annual  meeting  of  the  general  assem- 
bly alternately  at  Hartford  and  New  Haven,  thereby  placing  the 
two  capitals,  as  nearly  as  might  be,  on  political  equality.  The 
prospect  of  gaining  such  an  advantage  of  a  rival,  by  remodeling 
the  constitution,  was  an  inducement  which  party  ties  were  weak 
to  resist.  Many  federalists  of  New  Haven  and  its  vicinity  openly 
favored  "Constitution  and  Reform,"  or  were  careful  not  to  mani- 
fest their  opposition. 

At  a  town  meeting  in  New  Haven,  Dec.  29,  1817,  a  resolution 
instructing  the  representatives  "  to  use  their  interest  and  exer- 
tions that  measures  be  immediately  taken  for  forming  a  written 
constitution  of  civil  government,"  introduced  by  Henry  W.  Ed- 
wards and  advocated  by  Ralph  I.  Ingersoll  and  Isaac  Mills,  was 
passed  "  almost  unanimously,"  and  the  Register,  in  publishing 
the  fact,  was  "  happy  to  add  that  many  of  the  most  respectable 
and  candid  of  the  Federalists  have  united  with  the  Republicans." 

Other  considerations  than  those  which  were  suggested  by  secta- 
rian or  local  interests  contributed  to  weaken  federal  opposition 
to  the  projected  reform.  Circumstances  had  brought  prominently 
into  notice  the  most  serious  defect  of  the  old  constitution  and  of 
the  existing  form  of  government — the  omission  to  define  or  limit 
"  the  supreme  power  and  authority  of  the  State  "  which  was 
vested  in  the  general  assembly  without  any  reservation  of  judi- 
cial authority  to  the  proper  courts  of  law.  The  legislature  had, 
from  the  settlement  of  the  colony,  been  regarded  as  the  court  of 
ultimate  resort  in  all  matters,  civil  and  criminal.     It  had  for  a 


40  UNLIMITED    POWERS    OF   THE   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY. 

long  time  reserved  to  itself  sole  jurisdiction  in  equity,  and  had  not 
yet  delegated  to  the  courts  the  power  of  granting  relief  in  equity, 
where  the  amount  in  controversy  exceeded  5,335  dollars'".     It 
might  call  to  account  any  court  or  magistrate,  and,  for  cause 
found,  fine,  displace,  or  punish  them,  at  discretion  ;  and  its  power 
to  grant  pardons,  suspensions,  and  reprieves,  in  capital  or  other 
criminal  cases,  was  unquestioned.     It  was  natural,  therefore,  that 
— the  occasional  remonstrances  of  the  bench  notwithstanding — 
the  opinion  should  be   maintained  by  many,   and  especially  by 
those  who,  for  the  time,  were  invested  by  popular  election  with 
this  unrestricted  power — that  "  the   assembly,  by  virtue  of  their 
supreme  authority,   may  superintend   and  overlook  all  inferior 
jurisdictions,  and   may   proceed,  upon  the  principles  of  abstract 
right  and  perfect  justice,  to  grant  relief  to  the  people  in  all  in- 
stances in  which  they  have  sustained  wrong  in  any  possible  man- 
ner whatever."1     And  here  was  danger  of  the  very  evil  against 
which  the  founders  of  Connecticut  sought  to  guard  themselves 
and  their  posterity,  in  framing  the  constitution  of  1639 — the 
"way  which  leads  directly  to  tyranny,  and  so  to  confusion" — 
for,  as  Hooker  believed — when,  "  in  the  matter  which  is  referred 
to  the  judge,  the  sentence  should  lie  in  his  breast,  or  be  left  to 
his  discretion,  according  to  which  he  should  go,  is  a  course  which 
wants  both  safety  and  warrant."12     Judge  Swift,  in  1795,  though 
he  characterized  those  who  pretended  that  Connecticut  had  no 
constitution,  as  "visionary  theorists,"  did  not  overlook  "  a  ques- 
tion of  great  nicety  and  difficulty  [which]  arises  respecting  the 
constitutional  jurisdiction  of  the  general  assembly,  in  controver- 
sies of  a  private  and  adversary  nature."     Admitting  that  the  as- 
sembly "  possessed  the  power  of  doing,  and  directing,  whatever 
they  shall  think  to  be  for  the  good  of  the  community,"  he  main- 
tained that  "  it  ought  to  be  deemed   an  inviolable  maxim,  that 
when  proper  courts  of  law  are  constituted,  the  legislature  are  divested 
of  all  judicial  authority ."'     But  in  the  absence  of  any  distribution 
of  powers,  by  the  organic  law,  it  was  not  easy  to  effect  the  sepa- 
ration of  the  law-dispensing  from  the  law-making  power. 

In  1815,  the  action  of  the  general  assembly  in  a  case  in  which 
Judge  Swift '(then  Chief  Judge)  was  nearly  concerned,  attracted 

10  Rev.  Statutes,  1808,  p.  550.     The  amount  was  fixed  as  the  equivalent  of  1600 
pounds,  the  limit  of  jurisdiction  by  the  revision  of  1784,  p.  192. 

11  Swift's  System  (1795),  i.  75.  »  Ante,  p.  7.  *  System,  i.  74. 


JUDGE  swift's  vindication.  41 

general  attention,  and  gave  occasion  to  the  publication  of  some 
excellent  "Observations  on  the  constitutional  power  of  the  Legis- 
lature to  interfere  with  the  Judiciary  in  the  administration  of 
justice.''2  At  the  October  session,  the  general  assembly  annulled 
the  judgment  and  set  aside  the  sentence  pronounced  against  a 
murderer  convicted  at  a  special  session  of  the  superior  court,  at 
Middletown — on  the  ground  that  the  court  was  irregularly  and 
illegally  convened,  and  that  the  order  for  summoning  the  grand 
jury  had  been  illegally  issued.  The  chief  judge,  who  presided 
at  the  trial,  felt  himself  constrained  to  appeal  to  the  public  in  vin- 
dication of  his  judicial  character,  against  the  implied  censure  of 
the  assembly.  "  It  is  true,"  he  observes,  "  we  have  no  written  con- 
stitution ;  our  constitution  is  make  up  of  usages  and  customs : 
but  it  has  been  always  understood  that  there  were  certain 
fundamental  axioms  which  were  to  be  held  sacred  and  invio- 
lable, and  which  were  the  basis  on  which  rested  the  rights  of  the 
people.  .  .  .  The  government  of  the  State,  like  most  others,  is 
divided  into  three  branches,  the  executive,  the  legislative,  and 
the  judiciary.  These  are  co-ordinate  and  independent  of  each 
other,  and  the  powers  of  one  should  never  be  exercised  by  the 
other.  ...  It  ought  to  be  holden  as  a  fundamental  axiom,  that  the 
Legislature  should  never  encroach  on  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Judiciary, 
nor  assume  the  province  of  interfering  in  private  rights,  nor  of 
overhaling  the  decisions  of  courts  of  law."  If  this  principle 
should  be  disregarded,  "  the  Legislature  would  become  one  great 
arbitration,  that  would  ingulf  all  the  courts  of  law,  and  sovereign 
discretion  would  be  the  only  rule  of  decision — a  state  of  things 
equally  favorable  to  lawyers  and  criminals."3 

"  Peter  Lung's  case  "  gave  a  new  argument  to  the  advocates 
of  constitutional  reform,  and  the  Chief  Judge's  "  Vindication  " 
was  well  calculated  to  exert  influence  in  drawing  a  portion  of  the 
more  conservative  federalists  to  the  support  of  the  republican  and 
toleration  ticket  in  the  elections  of  the  two  following  years. 

The  election  of  1818  was  regarded  by  all  parties  as  decisive — 
as  to  the  change  not  only  of  the  policy,  but  of  the  frame  of  gov- 
ernment.    When  the  assembly  met  in  May,4  it  was  well  under- 

2  "  A  Vindication  of  the  calling  of  the  Special  Superior  Court,  at  Middletown  .  .  . 
for  the  trial  of  Peter  Lung  .  .  .  with  Observations"  &c.     Windham,  1816,  8vo. 

3  A  Vindication,    &c,  pp.  40-42. 

4  Gideon  Tomlinson,  of  Fairfield,  was  chosen  Speaker ;  Elisha  Phelps,  of  Sims- 
bury,  and  Samuel  A.  Foot,  of  Cheshire,  clerks.  / 

6 


42  gov.  wolcott's  message,  1818. 

stood  that  its  principal  business  was  to  provide  for  calling  a  Con- 
stitutional Convention.  Governor  Wolcott,  in  his  speech  to  the 
two  houses,  at  the  opening  of  the  session,  presented  this  subject 
to  their  consideration,  with  characteristic  fairness,  caution,  and 
good  sense  : 

"  As  a  portion  of  the  people  have  expressed  a  desire  that  the  form  of 
civil  government  in  this  State  should  be  revised,  this  highly  interesting 
subject  will  probably  engage  your  deliberations.  I  presume  that  it  will 
not  be  proposed  by  any  one  to  impair  our  institutions,  or  to  abridge  any 
of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  people.  The  State  of  Connecticut,  as 
at  present  constituted,  is,  in  my  opinion,  the  most  venerable  and  precious 
monument  of  republican  government,  existing  among  men.  With  the  ex- 
ception of  less  than  two  years  from  its  first  settlement,  embracing  a  period 
nearly  coeval  with  the  revival  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  in  Europe, 
all  the  powers  of  government  have  been  directly  derived  from  the  people. 
The  governors  and  counsellors  have  been  annually,  and  the  representa- 
tives semi-annually  elected  by  the  freemen,  who  have  always  constituted 
the  great  body  of  the  people.  Nor  has  the  manifestation  of  the  powers 
of  the  freemen  been  confined  to  the  elections.  They  have  ever  been  ac- 
customed to  public  consultations  and  deliberations  of  intricacy  and  im- 
portance. Their  meetings  have  been  generally  conducted  with  the  same 
order  and  decorum  as  those  of  this  assembly.  No  instance  is  known  in 
which  a  single  life  has  been  lost,  in  consequence  of  any  mob,  tumult,  or 
popular  commotion.  The  support  of  religion,  elementary  schools,  paupers, 
public  roads  and  bridges — comprising  about  eight-tenths  of  the  public 
expenses — has  been  constantly  derived  from  taxes  imposed  by  the  votes  of 
the  people  ;  and  the  most  interesting  regulations  of  our  police  have  ever 
been  and  still  are  enforced  by  officers  deriving  their  powers  from  annual 
popular  appointments. 

"  Prior  to  the  establishment  of  American  independence,  the  Charter  of 
Charles  the  Second  of  England  was  viewed  as  the  palladium  of  the  liber- 
ties of  Connecticut.  It  surely  merited  all  the  attachment  it  received  ; 
for  whatever  had  been  the  claims  of  the  British  crown  or  nation,  to  ju- 
risdiction or  territory,  they  were  all,  with  nominal  exceptions,  surrendered 
to  our  ancestors,  by  that  instrument;  especially,  there  was  expressly  ceded 
to  them  and  their  posterity,  the  inestimable  privilege  of  being  governed 
by  municipal  regulations  framed  and  executed  by  rulers  of  their  own  ap- 
pointment. The  revolutionary  war  of  course  occasioned  no  change  or  dis- 
solution of  our  social  system. 

"  Considered  merely  as  an  instrument  defining  the  powers  and  duties  of 
magistrates  and  rulers,  the  Charter  may  justly  be  considered  as  unprovis- 
ional  and  imperfect ;  yet  it  ought  to  be  recollected  that  what  is  now  its 


REPORT   OP   THE    COMMITTEE.  43 

greatest  defect  was  formerly  a  pre-eminent  advantage,  it  being  then  high- 
ly important  to  the  people  to  acquire  the  greatest  latitude  of  authority, 
with  an  exemption  from  British  interference  and  control. 

"If  I  correctly  comprehend  the  wishes  which  have  been  expressed  by  a 
portion  of  our  fellow  citizens,  they  are  now  desirous,  as  the  sources  of  ap- 
prehension from  external  causes  are  at  present  happily  closed,  that  the 
Legislative,  Executive,  and  Judicial  authorities  of  their  own  government 
may  be  more  precisely  denned  and  limited,  and  the  rights  of  the  people 
declared  and  acknowledged.  It  is  your  province  to  dispose  of  this  im- 
portant subject,  in  such  manner  as  will  best  promote  general  satisfaction 
and  tranquillity." 

The  House  of  Representatives  raised  a  select  committee  of  five, 
"  on  so  much  of  the  Governor's  Message  as  relates  to  a  revision 
of  the  form  of  civil  government,"  and  Messrs.  Orange  Merwin  of 
New  Milford,  David  Plant  of  Stratford,  Shubael  Griswold  of 
East  Hartford,  Nathan  Pendleton  of  North  Stonington,  and 
Nathaniel  Griffing  of  Guilford  were  appointed  as  such  committee. 
The  Council  passed  a  resolution  appointing  the  Hon.  Elijah  Board- 
man  (Rep.)  and  Hon.  William  Bristol  (Tol.)  with  such  gentle- 
men as  might  be  designated  by  the  house,  as  a  joint  committee. 
— and  sent  it  down  for  concurrence.  The  House  refused  to  con- 
sider it,  and  ordered  it  to  lie  on  the  table,  until  the  committee 
they  had  already  appointed  should  report. 

The  House  committee  presented  the  following  report : 

"  General  Assembly,  May  Session,  1818. 

"  The  Committee  appointed  on  that  part  of  His  Excellency  the  Gov- 
ernor's Speech  which  relates  to  a  revision  of  the  form  of  Civil  Govern- 
ment in  this  State,     Report : 

That  in  conducting  their  minds  to  a  result  on  this  deeply  important 
subject,  your  committee  have  deemed  no  small  deference  due  to  public 
feeling  and  opinion.  From  resolutions  adopted  in  many  towns,  and  pe- 
titions from  a  respectable  number  of  our  fellow  citizens  in  others,  together 
with  information  derived  from  various  other  sources,  they  can  entertain  no 
doubt  of  a  general  manifestation  of  a  desire  for  a  revision  and  reformation 
of  the  structure  of  our  civil  government  and  the  establishment  of  a  Con- 
stitutional Compact. 

As  all  just  political  power  is  founded  on  the  authority  of  the  people, 
and  instituted  for  their  safety  and  happiness,  a  free  and  deliberate  expres- 
sion of  the  public  will  as  to  any  modification  of  that  power  is  eminently 
entitled  to  regard, — a  regard  strongly  enforced  by  the  consideration,  that 
no  government,  whatever  in  other  respects  may  be  its  character,  can  be 


44  RESOLVE 

expected  to  produce  the  best  effects,  to  which  the  governed  are  not  attach- 
ed by  affection  and  respect. 

Although  the  political  happiness  which  has  been  enjoyed  under  the 
laws  and  government  of  this  State  affords  cause  for  grateful  acknowledg- 
ment, yet,  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  this  happiness  is  to  be  ascrib- 
ed to  other  causes,  rather  than  to  any  peculiar  intrinsic  excellence  in  the 
form  and  character  of  the  government  itself.  Destitute  of  fundamental  laws 
defining  and  limiting  the  powers  of  the  Legislature,  the  citizen  has  no  se- 
curity against  encroachments  on  his  most  sacred  rights,  and  violations  of 
the  first  principles  of  a  free  government,  except  what  may  be  found  in  the 
dependence  of  that  body  on  the  frequency  of  popular  elections.  Yet  even 
these  boasted  barriers  against  arbitrary  power  may  at  any  time  be  pros- 
trated by  the  Legislative  will.  What  sufficient  security,  then,  have  the 
people  against  the  most  extravagant  exercise  of  power  by  such  a  Legisla- 
ture, always  liable  to  be  impelled  by  passion,  caprice,  and  party  spirit,  or 
to  be  influenced  by  intrigue  or  misinformation  ?  There  is  none  to  be 
found  in  the  theory  of  our  government,  and  experience,  to  which  we, 
with  regret,  recur,  may  teach  us  that  there  is  none  elsewhere. 

The  organization  of  the  different  branches  of  government,  the  separa- 
tion of  their  powers,  the  tenure  of  office,  the  elective  franchise,  liberty  of 
speech  and  of  the  press,  freedorh  of  conscience,  trial  by  jury, — rights 
which  relate  to  these  deeply  interesting  subjects  ought  not  to  be  suffered 
to  rest  on  the  frail  foundation  of  legislative  will  or  discretion. 

Regarding  the  present  as  a  period  peculiarly  auspicious  for  carrying 
into  effect  the  wishes  of  our  fellow-citizens  on  this  important  subject, — 
a  period  in  a  great  measure  happily  free  from  the  agitation  and  collision 
of  party  spirit,  and  in  which  we  have  the  advantage  of  the  instruction 
which  experience  has  alike  derived  from  the  excellencies  and  faults  of 
the  Constitutions  of  our  sister  States,  your  committee  beg  leave  to  recom- 
mend the  adoption  of  the  accompanying  Resolution. 

Per  order, 

Orange  Merwin,  Chairman. 

The  Resolution,  as  subsequently  completed,  by  filling  the 
blanks  left  by  the  Committee,  was  as  follows  : 

Resolved  by  this  Assembly.  That  it  be,  and  it  is  hereby  recommended 
to  the  people  of  this  State,  who  are  qualified  to  vote  in  Town  or  Free 
men's  Meetings,  to  assemble  in  their  respective  towns,  on  the  fourth  day  of 
July1  next  at  9  o'clock  in  the  morning,  at  their  usual  place  of  holding 
Town  or  Freemens  Meetings,  and,  after  having  chosen  their  presiding  offi- 
cer, then  and  there  to  elect,  by  ballot,  as  many  delegates  as  said  towns  now 
choose  representatives  to  the  General  Assembly,  who  shall  meet  in  con- 

1  The  words  printed  in  italics  were  inserted  by  the  House. 


CALLING   A    CONVENTION.  45 

vention  at  the  State  House  in  Hartford,  on  the  4th  Wednesday  of  August 
next,  and  when  so  convened  shall,  if  it  be  by  them  deemed  expedient,  pro- 
ceed to  the  formation  of  a  Constitution  of  Civil  Government,  for  the  peo- 
ple of  this  State :  a  copy  of  which  Constitution,  when  so  formed,  shall  be 
by  said  convention  forthwith  transmitted  to  each  town  clerk  in  this 
State,  to  be  by  him  submitted  to  the  qualified  voters  in  the  town  to  which 
he  belongs,  assembled  at  such  time  as  said  convention  may  designate  ; 
which  time  shall  not  be  less  than  one  week,  nor  more  than  three  weeks 
from  the  rising  of  said  convention,  for  their  approbation  and  ratification  : 
and  said  Constitution,  when  ratified  and  approved,  by  such  majority  of 
said  qualified  voters  convened  as  aforesaid,  as  shall  be  directed  by  said  con- 
vention,1 shall  be  and  remain  the  Supreme  Law  of  this  State. 

And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Selectmen 
in  the  several  towns  aforesaid,  to  give  legal  notice  of  the  time,  place,  and 
object  of  holding  town  meetings  as  aforesaid,  whether  for  the  election  of 
Delegates,  or  for  the  ratification  of  the  Constitution  :  and  the  votes  in  the 
meetings  for  the  choice  of  delegates  shall  be  counted,  and  certificates  of 
election  shall  be  supplied  to  said  delegates,  in  the  same  manner  as  is  now 
practised  in  the  election  of  representatives  to  the  General  Assembly. 
And  the  presiding  officer  chosen  by  said  meetings  for  ratifying  the  Con- 
stitution as  aforesaid,  shall,  as  soon  as  may  be,  transmit  by  the  represen- 
tatives of  their  respective  towns,  to  the  General  Assembly  next  after 
such  meetings  are  held,  a  certified  statement  of  the  number  of  votes  given 
in  said  towns,  on  the  question  of  ratifying  said  Constitution,  both  affirma- 
tive and  negative,  and  a  like  statement  said  presiding  officer  shall  also 
lodge  with  the  town  clerks  of  their  respective  towns,  which  votes  shall  be 
returned  to  said  assembly,  and  counted  in  the  same  manner,  as  is  by  law 
provided  for  returning  and  counting  the  votes  for  Governor  of  this  State. 

And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of 
delegates  so  elected,  shall  form  a  quorum,  and  said  convention  shall 
choose  a  president  and  clerk  ;  and  the  clerk  of  said  convention  having 
been  sworn  to  a  faithful  discharge  of  the  duties  of  his  office,  shall  proceed 
to  administer  to  the  president  and  members  thereof,  the  following  oath  or 
affirmation,  viz  : 

"  You,  being  chosen  delegates  to  this  convention  for  the  purpose,  if 
need  be,  of  framing  and  devising  a  Constitution  of  Civil  Government  for 
the  people  of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm) 
that  you  will  faithfully  discharge  the  trust  confided  to  you." 

And  said  delegates  shall  be  allowed  the  same  fees  for  travel  and  at- 
tendance on  said  convention,  as  is  now  by  law  allowed  to  the  Representa- 
tives to  the  General  Assembly. 

Be  it  further  resolved,  That  all  such  persons  as  are,  or  may,  at  the 
time  of  either  of  said  meetings,  be  qualified  by  law,  and  duly  certified  as 


46  AMENDMENTS   PROPOSED. 

such,  by  the  lawful  board  for  said  purpose,  to  be  made  freemen  of  this 
State,  may  then  and  there  be  admitted  and  sworn,  and  shall  be  authorized 
to  act  as  such,  in  the  business  of  said  meetings. 

An  unsuccessful  attempt  was  made  to  amend  the  resolution — 
on  motion  of  Samuel  A.  Foot — by  substituting,  in  the  sixth  line, 
the  words  "  one  delegate,"  for,  "  as  many  delegates  as  said  towns 
now  choose  representatives  to  the  general  assembly."  This  was 
opposed  by  Mr.  Charming  of  New  London  and  Mr.  Austin  of 
New  Hartford,  and  was  rejected. 

To  a  motion  to  fill  the  first  blank,  by  fixing  the  "  fourth  day  of 
July"  as  the  time  of  holding  the  freemen's  meetings  for  the  choice 
of  delegates,  Mr.  Griswold  of  East  Hartford  (Fed.)  objected,  be- 
cause this  was  a  holiday,  and  moreover,  the  fourth  of  July  hap- 
pened this  year  to  fall  on  a  Saturday,  when  it  was  inconvenient 
to  the  freemen  to  attend  town  meetings.  Col.  John  McClellan, 
of  Woodstock  (Fed.)  "  could  not  agree  with  the  gentleman  from 
East  Hartford ;  he  knew  the  fourth  of  July  was  a  merry  day,  but 
he  thought,  if  the  people  began  early  in  the  morning,  they  would 
be  able  to  get  through  before  they  were  disqualified  to  vote."2 

On  filling  the  remaining  blank — thereby  determining  what 
majority  should  be  required  for  ratification — there  was  more 
diversity  of  opinion  and  longer  debate.  Mr.  John  Alsop,  of  Mid- 
dletown,  proposed  "  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  towns." 
Mr.  James  Stevens,  of  Stamford,  proposed  "  three  fifths"  instead 
of  "  two-thirds."3  Mr.  Austin,  of  New  Hartford,  objected  to  both 
propositions,  because  "  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  towns 
might  not  contain  one-fourth  of  the  people."  Mr.  Calvin  Butler, 
of  Plymouth,  wished  to  substitute  "  four-fifths."  Mr.  Foot  pre- 
ferred to  leave  this  question  to  be  decided  by  the  convention 
itself.  Mr.  Jonathan  W.  Edwards,  of  Hartford,  moved  to  fill  the 
blank  with  the  words,  "  which,  when  ratified  by  three-fifths  of  the 
legal  voters  of  this  State,  assembled  in  legal  town  meeting  warned 
for  that  purpose,  shall  become  the  Constitution  and  supreme  law 
of  the  land,"  and  by  vote  of  the  house  the  blank  was  so  filled. 
But  the  bill  having  been  returned  to  the  committee  for  revision, 
they  reported  it  with  an  amendment  requiring  only  a  "  majority 


2  Report  of  debates,  in  Conn.  Courant,  June  9th. 

3  Had  either  proposition  been  adopted  the  Constitution  would  not  haveheen  ratified. 
It  received  in  October  a  majority  of  the  votes  in  on\y  fifty -nine  of  the  one  hundred  and 
twenty  towns. 


SPEECH   OP   J.    W.    EDWARDS. 

of  the  freemen,"  and  this  amendment  was  accepted  by  the  house 
— by  a  bare  majority  (yeas,  81 ;  nays,  80).  Mr.  Foot  then 
offered  another  amendment,  providing  for  ratification  "  by  such 
majority  of  the  qualified  voters  as  shall  be  directed  by  said  conven- 
tion" and  this  was  finally  adopted. 

The  resolution  was  supported  in  debate,  by  Mr.  Plant  of  Strat- 
ford, Mr.  Foot  of  Cheshire,  and  Mr.  Burrows  of  Hebron,  and 
opposed  by  Mr.  Griswold  of  East  Hartford,  and  Jonathan  W. 
Edwards  of  Hartford.  An  abstract  of  Mr.  Edwards'  speech, 
from  a  newspaper  report,4  may  appropriately  be  inserted  here,  as 
presenting  the  views  of  the  federal  minority  and  the  grounds  of 
their  opposition  to  a  change  in  the  form  of  civil  government : 

"  Mr.  Jona.  W.  Edwards,  of  Hartford,  said  :  I  do  not  rise,  Mr. 
Speaker,  at  this  late  hour,  under  the  expectation  that  any  observations 
which  I  may  make  will  change  the  vote  of  a  single  member  of  this  house  ; 
but  as  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  give  my  vote  on  this  bill,  I  shall  not  hesitate 
to  avow  the  reasons  by  which  I  am  influenced. 

"  We  are  blessed  with  a  Constitution,  sir,  and  if  it  is  not  a  written  one, 
it  is  one  under  which  the  citizens  of  Connecticut  have  enjoyed  more  peace, 
more  happiness,  and  more  freedom,  than  could  ever  be  boasted  of  by 
any  other  people  under  any  other  government.  Our  form  of  civil  govern- 
ment has  remained  from  1662,  almost  without  a  change.  It  was  in  its 
first  outlines  formed  by  all  the  free  male  inhabitants  of  the  three  towns  of 
Windsor,  Hartford,  and  Wethersfield.  Afterwards  the  Charter  of  Charles 
was  drawn,  in  this  town,  made  as  we  wished,  and  sent  to  England  for 
ratification.  It  rendered  us  independent,  and  accordingly  we  were  gov- 
erned solely  by  laws  made  by  ourselves.  The  royal  and  proprietary 
governments  were  dissolved  by  the  revolution — but  ours,  a  charter  govern- 
ment, remained  unaltered.  The  first  charter  was  drawn  up,  perhaps, 
about  the  spot  where  I  now  stand.  It  was  drawn  up,  sir,  at  the  request 
of  the  'people.  It  was  not  a  charter  of  King  Charles,  but  a  charter  of  the 
people,  and  under  it  we  have  always  exercised  all  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment, and  have  enjoyed  as  much  freedom  as  has  fallen  to  the  lot  of  any 
other  community.  The  assent  of  the  j3eople,  by  long  usage  and  acqui- 
escence, has  been  as  fully  expressed,  as  if  the  votes  of  the  people  had  been 
taken,  and  the  assent  is  less  equivocally  expressed  than  even  by  a  vote. 
What  advantage,  then,  shall  we  gain,  sir,  by  a  written  Constitution  ?  A 
written  Constitution  appears  to  me  to  be  of  no  value,  except  in  two  cases : 
First,  where  a  people  have  been  holden  in  servitude,  and,  have  obtained 
their  freedom   from  their  sovereigns.     All  the  people  of  Europe  have 

4  Conn.  Courant,  June  9th. 


48  THE  CONVENTION   CALLED. 

emerged  from  a  state  of  vassalage ;  they  were  once  the  dependents  of 
their  military  chieftains,  and  the  privileges  which  they  now  enjoy  were 
extorted  by  degrees  from  their  lords,  and  holden  by  charter.  To  such  a 
people  a  written  constitution  is  highly  important.  The  other  case  in 
which  it  is  proper  to  have  a  written  constitution,  is  where  several  sover- 
eign states  are  united  under  one  general  and  federal  government.  It  is 
indispensably  necessary  to  have  the  limits  of  the  general  and  of  the  par 
ticular  government  accurately  defined  by  a  written  constitution.  The 
State  of  Connecticut  is  not  composed  of  inferior  sovereignties.  As  a  state, 
*  it  is  one  and  indivisible.  Neither  do  the  people  hold  their  liberties  from 
the  grant  or  license  of  any  lord  or  sovereign ;  they  are  of  themselves 
free,  sovereign,  and  independent ;"  they  can  never  be  more  free ;  they 
cannot  even  form  a  Constitution,  without  relinquishing  some  part  of  their 
freedom — the  freedom,  at  least,  of  changing  their  laws  whenever  they  are 
dissatisfied  with  their  operation.  They  now  choose  one  branch  of  the 
legislature  half-yearly,  and  the  other  annually,  so  that  no  law  will  proba- 
bly continue  in  force  more  than  six  months,  and  certainly  it  cannot  more 
than  one  year,  before  it  will  be  abolished,  if  the  people  wish  it.  The 
people,  therefore,  do  not  ask  for  a  Constitution — and  those  who  are  now 
in  power  may  be  satisfied  with  uncontrolled  dominion.  They  surely  can- 
not wish  to  part  with  the  power  of  making  wholesome  laws  and  regula- 
tions ;  and  they  will  not  admit  that  the  people  are  in  any  danger  from 
their  usurpations.  I  think,  sir,  we  have  nothing  to  gain,  and  have  much 
to  hazard,  by  an  innovation.  If,  however,  we  must  have  a  Constitution^ 
I  would  postpone  it  till  the  next  session  of  the  Legislature,  and  if  we  must 
then  form  a  Constitution,  we  ought  all  to  join  and  make  it  as  perfect  as 
possible." 

The  resolution  was  adopted  June  2d,  and  the  Assembly  adjourn- 
ed, on  the  6  th. 

The  result  of  the  town  elections  on  the  fourth  of  July  assured 
a  considerable  majority  to  the  Tolerationists,  in  the  convention. 
Both  parties  had  placed  in  nomination  their  strongest  men,  and 
although,  in  a  few  towns,  sectarian  resentment  or  party  spirit  pre- 
vented the  election  of  some  whose  talents  and  experience  quali- 
fied them  to  take  a  prominent  part  in  the  work  of  re-construction, 
yet  the  federalists  did  not  hesitate  to  admit,  that  "  the  freemen 
seemed  to  have  been  in  a  great  measure  impressed  with  the  im- 
portance of  the  subject,  by  selecting,  for  the  most  part,  judicious 
and  intelligent  men,  instead  of  furious  and  bitter  partisans," — 
including  "  many  who  had  long  possessed  and  deserved  the  con- 
fidence of  their  fellow-citizens."     And  all  parties  concurred  in 


THE  CONVENTION  ORGANIZED.  49 

expressions  of  confidence  "  that  the  wisdom,  patriotism,  and 
experience  of  the  members  of  this  Convention,  would  enable 
them  faithfully  and  satisfactorily  to  discharge  the  great  and 
responsible  duties  of  their  station — to  frame  a  Constitution  that 
will  be  acceptable  to  every  class  of  freemen."6 

Such  confidence  was  well-grounded.  Seldom,  if  ever,  has 
any  body  of  men  so  respectable,  by  the  character,  talents, 
political  experience,  and  good  sense  of  its  members,  been  con- 
vened in  Connecticut. 

The  federal  leaders  accepted  the  coming  constitution,  as  inevi- 
table, and,  refraining  from  any  parade  of  hopeless  opposition, 
directed^  their  efforts  to  preserve  as  much  as  possible  of  the 
-established  institutions  of  Connecticut  under  a  new  form — and 
distribution  of  the  powers*— of  government.  "  Federalists," 
they  said,  "  are  far  enough  from  being  opposed  to  a  constitution, 
and  instead  of  being  'enemies  to  it'  [as  had  been  charged  upon 
them],  will  be  heartily  glad  to  co-operate  with  all  honest  repub- 
licans, to  form  such  a  constitution  of  civil  government  as  will 
secure  to  the  freemen  of  Connecticut  '  equal  rights '  and  a 
continuance  of  those  numerous  privileges  which  have  so  long- 
distinguished  the  people  of  this  State."6 

On  Wednesday,  August  26th,  the  Convention  met,  in  the 
Hall  of  Representatives  at  Hartford.  It  was  called  to  order  by 
the  Hon.  Jesse  Root  of  Coventry,  the  oldest  delegate  present,  and 
proceeded  to  the  choice  of  a  clerk.  Some  discussion  was  had, 
as  to  the  propriety  of  conferring  that  office  on  any  person  who 
was  not  a  member  of  the  Convention.  Thomas  Day,  the  secre- 
tary of  the  State,  was  the  leading  federal  candidate.  On  the 
first  ballot,  the  vote  stood :  James  Lanman,  87  ;  Thomas  Day, 
35;  Gideon  Tomlinson,  26;  Ralph  I.  Ingersoll,  21;  Timothy 
Pitkin,  18  ;  and  22  scattering.  Mr.  Lanman  was  chosen,  on  the 
third  ballot.7 

Governor  Wolcott,  who  came  as  one  of  the  delegates  from 
Litchfield,  was  elected  president  of  the  Convention. 

In  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day,  on  motion  of  Mr.  James 
Stevens,  it  was 

5  Conn.  Courant,  July  14,  1818.     The  writer  estimates  the  strength  of  parties  in 
the  Convention  at  105  Democrats,  95  Federalists. 

6  Conn.  Courant,  Juue  21.  7  Ibid. ;  Journal  of  Convention. 

7 


50 


THE   DRAFTING   COMMITTEE. 


"  Resolved,  That  this  Convention  do  deem  it  expedient  to  proceed  at 
this  time  to  form  a  Constitution  of  Civil  Government  for  the  people  of 
this  State." 

The  next  morning,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Robert  Fairchild,  it  was 
resolved  to  appoint,  by  ballot,  a  committee  of  three  members 
from  each  county,  to  draft  a  Constitution  and  report  the  same  to 
the  Convention.     This  committee  was  constituted  as  follows : 

For  the  county  of — 


Hartford 


New  Haven 


(  Sylvester  Wells, 
nj  Timothy  Pitkin, 
(  Elisha  Phelps, 


-\ 


William  Bristol, 
Nathan  Smith, 
William  Todd, 


C  Moses  Warren, 
New  London :  •<  Amasa  Learned, 
(  James  Lauman, 

(  Pierpont  Edwards, 
Fairfield :  <  James  Stevens, 

(  Gideon  Tomlinson, 

(  Peter  Webb, 
Windham:        •<  George  Larned, 

(  Edmund  Freeman, 

(  John  Welch, 
Litchfield :         <  Augustus  Pettibone, 
(  Orange  Merwin, 

(  Joshua  Stow, 
Middlesex:        <  William  Hungerford, 
(  Thomas  Lyman, 

(  Daniel  Burrows, 
Tolland:  J  Asa  Willey, 

(John  S.  Peters, 


of  Hartford, 
of  Farmington. 
of  Simsbury. 

of  New  Haven. 
u 

of  Guilford. 

of  Lyme. 

of  New  London. 

of  Norwich. 

of  Stratford, 
of  Stamford, 
of  Fairfield. 

of  Windham, 
of  Thompson, 
of  Mansfield. 

of  Litchfield. 

of  Norfolk. 

of  New  Milford. 

of  Middletown. 
of  East  Haddam. 
of  Durham. 

of  Hebron, 
of  Ellington, 
of  Hebron. 


More  than  half  the  members  of  this  committee  had  already 
attained  honorable  distinction  in  professional  or  public  life. 
Others,  not  yet  so  well  known  to  the  people,  were  soon  to  be 
called  to  important  trusts  and  to  receive  the  highest  honors  in 
the  gift  of  the  State.  Pierpont  Edwards — who  was  chosen  chair- 
man— was  regarded  by  the  federalists  as  the  contriver  of  the 
coalition  by  which  democracy  came  into  power  under  the  flag  of 
"toleration".  He  still  held  the  office  of  judge  of  the  U.S. 
district  court,  to  which  he  was  appointed  by  Mr.  Jefferson.  He 
and  Mr.  Amasa  Learned  had  been  members  of  the  convention 


THE   DRAFTING   COMMITTEE.  51 

which,  thirty  years  before,  ratified  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States.  Five  other  delegates  to  the  convention  of  1788,  were  in 
the  convention  of  1818,  namely,  Jesse  Root,  John  Tread  well, 
Stephen  Mix  Mitchell,  Aaron  Austin,  and  Lemuel  Sanford.  Five 
members  of  the  committee  (Messrs.  Bristol,  Wells,  Peters, 
Lanman,  and  Webb,)  were  assistants.  Three  (Messrs.  Pitkin, 
Edwards,  and  Learned)  had  been  representatives  in  congress, 
and  five  others  (Messrs.  Phelps,  Stevens,  Tomlinson,  Merwin, 
and  Burrows)  were  afterwards  elected  to  that  office .  Gideon 
Tomlinson  and  John  S.  Peters  became,  in  turn,  governors  of  the 
State,  and  James  Lanman,  Nathan  Smith,  and  Tomlinson,  senators 
of  the  United  States. 

Considering  the  hostility  to  Yale  College  which  had  been  mani- 
fested by  some  of  the  republicans  and  the  jealousy  with  which  its 
relation  to  the  State  was  regarded  by  dissenters  from  the  estab- 
lished order,  it  is  remarkable  that  so  many  alumni  of  Yale  were 
chosen  delegates  to  the  convention,  and  that  twelve  of  these  were 
placed  on  the  committee  (of  twenty -four)  to  draft  a  constitution.8 

Five  members  of  the  committee  were  taken  from  the  federal 
minority, — Messrs.  Pitkin,  Todd,  G.  Larned,  Pettibone,  and 
Willey.  Of  these,  Mr.  Pitkin  had  been  the  most  prominent  in 
his  party,  and  had  the  largest  experience  in  public  aifairs.  He 
had  represented  his  town  in  twenty  sessions  of  the  general  assem- 
bly, had  been  five  times  speaker  of  the  house,  and  since  1805  a 
representative  in  congress.  Nathan  Smith,  of  New  Haven,  though 
a  federalist  by  conviction  and  affinity  (his  brother,  Judge  Nathan- 
iel, was  a  delegate  to  the  Hartford  Convention  of  1814),  was  now 
— as  an  episcopalian,  a  trustee  to  the  Bishop's  Fund,  and  the 
agent  of  his  church  to  obtain  an  appropriation  from  the  State — 
associated  with  the  republicans  for  "  toleration  and  reform." 

Among  the  delegates  to  the  convention  at  large,  were  three 
honored  chiefs  of  federalism  and  pillars  of  the  established  order ; 
the  venerable  ex-chief-judges,  Jesse  Root  (now  in  his  eighty- 
second  year}  and  Stephen  Mix  Mitchell  (in  his  seventy-fifth),  and 

8  Hon.  Nathan  Smith,  who  received  an  honorary  degree  of  A.  M.  in  1808,  is  included 
in  this  number.  Dr.  John  S.  Peters  was  a  fellow  of  the  Connecticut  Medical 
Society,  but  did  not  receive  from  Yale  the  degree  of  M.  D.,  till  after  the  meeting  of  the 
convention.  Two  members  of  the  committee,  Messrs.  Larned  and  Freeman,  were 
graduates  of  Brown  University.  Thirty -nine  delegates  to  the  convention  were  alumni 
or  honoraries  of  Yale.  William  Hungerford,  of  the  class  of  1809,  and  Thomas 
Lyman,  of  1810,  were  the  two  youngest  graduates  on  the  committee. 


52  THE   CONVENTION. 

ex-governor  Tread  well  (in  his  seventy-third).  Gen.  Nathaniel 
Terry,  of  Hartford,  divided  with  Gov.  Treadwell  the  leadership  of 
the  party  in  the  convention.  The  Hon.  Aaron  Austin  of  New 
Hartford,  another  federal  delegate,  had  sat  with  the  assistants  at 
the  council-board  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century,  till  displaced 
by  the  revolution  of  1818.9  The  Hon.  Wm.  Perkins  of  Ashford, 
Col.  Shubael  Griswold  of  East  Hartford,  Gen.  LeviLusk  of  Weth- 
ersfield,  the  Rev.  Aaron  Church  of  Hartland,  Henry  Terry  Esq., 
of  Enfield,  Col.  John  McClellan  of  Woodstock,  were  well  known 
as  federalists  and  friends  to  the  established  order. 

On  the  side  of  Toleration  and  Reform,  prominent  among  the 
original  republicans  and  their  recognized  leader,  was  Alexander 
Wolcott,  of  Middletown,  a  Jeffersonian  democrat  of  the  most  pro- 
nounced type,  who,  "  more  than  any  other  individual,  deserves  to 
be  considered  as  the  father  and  founder  of  the  Jeffersonian  school 
of  politicsin  this  State."  10  The  Rev.  Asahel  Morse  (Baptist) 
of  Suffield,  the  sometime  Rev.  Daniel  Burrows  (Methodist)  of 
Hebron,  Joshua  Stow  of  Middletown — whose  misadventure  with 
the  republican  circular  in  1806,  supplied  the  federalists  with 
some  capital  and  gave  his  "  saddle  bags  "  a  place  in  political 
history,1 — Gen.  Joshua  King  of  Ridgefield,  David  Tomlinson 
of  Oxford,  one  of  the  new  Toleration  councillors,  Christopher 

9  His  town  gave  only  34  votes  for — to  156  against — the  Constitution,  in  Octoher. 

10  Hon.  John  M.  Niles ;  quoted  in  Stiles's  History  of  Windsor,  p.  834.  The  federal- 
ists of  1800  to  1817,  though  they  would  not  have  hesitated  to  concede  this  position  to 
the  "  State  Manager  "  of  his  party,  would  hardly  have  accepted,  without  dissent,  Mr. 
Niles'  eulogy  of  Alex.  Wolcott,  as  a  man  who,  "always  frank  in  his  purposes,  was 
equally  direct  in  his  means,  despising  chicanery  and  artifice,  the  constant  resource  of 
feeble  minds." 

1  "Joshua  Stow,  whom  the  State  Manager  [Wolcott]  had  appointed  County  Mana- 
ger, lost  his  saddle  bags  filled  with  copies  of  the  general  orders.  They  fell  into  the 
hands  of  gentlemen  who  had  no  interest  to  promote,  by  secrecy,  and  thus  they  were 
published  in  the  federal  papers." — The  Sixth  of  August,  or  the  Litchfield  Festival, 
[Hartford]  1806,  p.  11. 

"  These  men  have  reduced  their  plan  to  a  system,  and  they  are  completely  organ- 
ized and  officered.  This  is  fully  evidenced,  by  a  circular  letter,  from  their  Chief  Mana- 
ger. This  letter  was  a  business  of  serecy,  but  providentially  discovered;  it  was  safely 
committed  by  the  post,  to  the  portmanteau  on  the  horse ;  but  the  horse,  like  Absalom's 
Ass,  despised  his  burden,  and  frighted  at  the  contents,  broke  his  fast  and  ran,  till 
the  letter  was  dislodged  in  the  street.  Here  were  peremptory,  yea,  sovereign  orders 
given  to  every  town  manager,"  &c.  "  What  friend  to  his  country  can  read  the  Man- 
ager's letter  without  alarm  ?  If  so,  he  must  have  less  feeling  than  the  horse,  who 
generously  communicated  the  contents  to  the  public." — The  Two  Brothers:  a  Dialogue. 
Hartford,  1806.  p.  12. 


DISCUSSION   ON   THE   BILL   OF   RIGHTS.  53 

Manwaring,  of  New  London,  were  republicans  such  as  partisan 
speakers  of  our  time  are  wont  to  honor  as  the  "old  war  horses" 
of  democracy.  Several  of  the  most  distinguished  members  of 
the  party — besides  those  already  mentioned — were  on  the  drafting 
committee.  Besides  Dr.  Sylvester  Wells  and  Dr.  John  S.  Peters, 
(both  members  of  that  committee)  there  were  in  the  convention 
at  least  a  dozen  physicians,  nearly  all  on  the  toleration  side  : 
Drs.  Sh  el  ton  of  Huntington,  Perry  of  Woodbury,  Turner  of  Nor- 
wich, Lacey  of  Brookfield,  Jehiel  Williams  of  New  Milford,  and 
others  :  Drs.  Bela  Farnham  of  East  Haven,  and  S.  Everest  of 
Canton  were  with  the  federalists. 

Mr.  Lanman  having  been  placed  on  the  drafting  committee,  it 
became  necessary  to  provide  an  assistant  clerk  for  the  convention, 
and  Robert  Fair  child  was  chosen. 

On  Friday,  Aug.  28th,  the  committee,  by  their  chairman,  made 
a  partial  report,  submitted  a  Preamble,  and  a  Bill  of  Rights,  be- 
ing Article  I.  of  the  Constitution.  The  discussion  which  ensued 
— unimportant  in  itself — indicated  the  result  at  which  the  con- 
vention, constituted  as  it  was,  must  almost  of  necessity  arrive.  It 
was  evident  that  the  new  constitution  was  not  to  be  fashioned  as 
an  engine  or  a  platform  of  party.  The  tolerationists — many  of 
whom  were  drawn  from  the  federal  ranks — would  accept  the  re- 
publicanism of  their  allies,  but  stopped  short  of  pure  democracy. 
All  that  was  vital  in  the  first  constitution  and  the  charter,  was 
to  be  preserved  in  the  new  frame  of  government.  "  The  great 
and  essential  principles  of  liberty  and  free  government "  would 
be  recognized  and  established,  but  the  liberty  must  be  enjoyed 
under  the  restraints  of  established  law.  . 

Gov.  Treadwell,  for  the  old  federalists,  and  Alex.  Wolcott,  for 
the  democrats,  opposed  the  incorporation  of  any  bill  of  rights  in 
the  constitution.  The  former  argued  that,  "  such  a  declaration  of 
rights  might  be  proper  and  expedient,  or  even  necessary,  if  we 
had  to  contend  with  a  tyrant,  or  an  aristocracy  disposed  to  wrest 
from  the  people  their  rights,— but  it  was  well  known,  that  all 
power  is  vested  in  the  people  and  exercised  by  a  government  ap- 
pointed by  the  people.  Was  it  then  necessary  to  make  certain 
regulations  for  that  government  which  should  be  unalterahleV^x 

1  Debates  in  Conn.  Courant.  Gov.  Treadwell's  argument  is  the  same  which  Alex. 
Hamilton  presented  in  The  Federalist,  No.  lxxxjv.  (Dawson's  ed.,  p.  598,  ff.). 


54  RIGHTS   OP   CONSCIENCE. 

Mr.  Wolcott  objected  to  such  a  bill,  because  it  circumscribed  the 
powers  of  the  general  assembly,  and  offered  specific  objections  to 
several  clauses. 

When  the  fourth  section — "  no  preference  shall  be  given  by  law 
to  any  religious  sect  or  mode  of  worship" — was  under  discussion, 
the  Rev.  Asahel  Morse  offered  the  following  substitute : 

"  That  rights  of  conscience  are  inalienable ;  that  all  persons  have  a 
natural  and  indefeasible  right  to  worship  Almighty  God  according  to  their 
own  consciences ;  and  no  person  shall  be  compelled  to  attend  any  place  of 
worship,  or  contribute  to  the  support  of  any  minister,  contrary  to  his  own 
choice." 

The  substitute  was  opposed  by  Mr.  Pitkin  and  Gov.  Treadwell, 
(feds.)  and  by  P.  Edwards  (repub.),  and  was  rejected.  A  mo- 
tion was  afterwards  made,  to  amend  by  adding  the  last  clause  of 
Mr.  Morse's  proposed  substitute.  This  also  was  rejected.  On 
the  motion  of  Gov.  Treadwell — opposed  by  Alex.  Wolcott,  but  sus- 
tained by  Pierpont  Edwards  and  Nathan  Smith, — the  word  "Chris- 
tian" was  substituted  for  "religious."  With  this  amendment  the 
section  was  approved  and  adopted,  notwithstanding  the  opposition 
of  Messrs.  Wolcott,  Burrows,  and  Joshua  Stow.2 

The  second,  third,  and  fourth  articles  were  reported  by  the 
committee  on  Tuesday,  September  1. 

Their  final  report,  comprising  Articles  VII.  to  XL  inclusive, 
was  presented  on  Friday,  September  4th. 

Each  article  was  considered  by  the  convention — first,  by 
sections  ;  then,  after  discussion  and  amendment  of  the  several 
sections,  the  whole  article  was  again  open  to  amendment  before 
the  question  was  taken  on  its  adoption.  And  when  the  several 
Articles  had  been,  in  turn,  approved,  the  whole  instrument,  hav- 
ing been  printed  as  amended,  was  again  subjected  to  revision  and 
amendment  before  receiving  the  final  approval  of  the  convention. 

The  seventh  Article — "  Of  Religion  " — was  the  subject  of  pro- 
tracted and  lively  debate.  The  federalists  contested  its  passage, 
at  every  point,  and  succeeded  in  modifying,  in  important  particu- 
lars, the  draft  of  the  committee,  but  they  could  not  prevent  the 
complete  severance  of  church  from  state,  the  constitutional  guar- 
anty of  the  rights  of  conscience,  or  the  recognition  of  the  abso- 
lute equality,  before  the  law,  of  all  Christian  denominations. 

2  Debates,  in  Conn.  Courant,  and  Journal  of  the  Convention. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SEVENTH  ARTICLE.  55 

To  the  first  clause,  as  reported  i  "  It  being  the  right  and  duty 
of  all  men  to  worship  the  Supreme  Being,  the  great  Creator  aud 
Preserver  of  the  Universe,  in  the  mode  most  consistent  with  the 
dictates  of  their  consciences" — Gov.  Treadwell  objected,  that 
"  conscience  may  be  perverted,  and  man  may  think  it  his  duty  to 
worship  his  Creator  by  image,  or  as  the  Greeks  and  Romans  did ; 
and  though  he  would  tolerate  all  modes  of  worship,  he  would  not 
recognize  it  in  the  Constitution,  as  the  duty  of  a  person  to  wor- 
ship as  the  heathen  do :"  and  Mr.  Tomlinson  subsequently  moved 
to  amend  this  clause  to  the  shape  in  which  it  now  stands  ("  the 

duty  of  all  men  to  worship and  their  right  to  render  that 

worship,"  &c.)  Gov.  Treadwell  also  objected,  that  this  clause 
"  goes  to  dissolve  all  ecclesiastical  societies  in  this  State," — and 
this  was  doubtless  the  intent  of  its  framers.  Mr.  Stow  thought, 
"  if  this  section  is  altered  in  any  way,  it  will  curtail  the  great 
principles  for  which  we  contend."3  The  committee's  draft  was 
supported,  in  debate,  by  Alex.  Wolcott,  Mr.  Tomlinson,  Daniel 
Burrows,  I^ierpont  Edwards,  Messrs.  Waldo,  Hart,  Stevens,  and 
Lanman,  and  opposed  by  Gov.  Treadwell,  Nathaniel  Terry,  and 
Timo.  Pitkin.  The  first  section  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  103  to  86, 
and  a  motion  by  Mr.  Pitkin  to  strike  out  the  whole  of  the  second 
section  was  rejected  by  105  to  844.  These  votes  indicate,  nearly, 
the  relative  strength  of  parties  in  the  convention.  On  the  final 
revision  of  the  constitution,  Mr.  Terry  offered  two  amendments 
to  the  first  section — the  effect  of  which  was  to  continue  the  old 
ecclesiastical  societies  and  to  secure  their  legal  rights  and  privi- 
leges as  corporate  bodies  :  and  these  amendments  were  adopted 
by  the  convention,  without  a  call  of  the  yeas  and  nays.5 

3  This  article  (as  I  was  informed  by  the  late  Mr.  Hungerford)  was  assigned  by  the 
drafting  committee  to  Messrs.  Gideon  Tomlinson  and  Joshua  Stow.  Its  first  clause, 
as  reported,  seems  to  have  been  taken,  with  slight  change  of  language,  from  Gov. 
Wolcott's  speech  to  the  general  assembly  in  May,  1817  :  "It  is  the  right  and  duty  of 
every  man  publicly  and  privately  to  worship  and  adore  the  Supreme  Creator  and 
Preserver  of  the  Universe,  in  the  manner  most  agreeable  to  the  dictates  of  his  own 
conscience."  The  statement  has  been  repeatedly  made,  by  writers  whose  authority  is 
entitled  to  respect,  that  "  the  Article  on  Religious  Liberty  in  the  Constitution  was 
drawn  up  by  the  pen  of  Rev.  Asahel  Morse,"  a  Baptist  minister  in  Suffield,  who  was 
a  delegate  to  the  Convention.  This  is  manifestly  incorrect — unless  Mr.  Morse  was 
the  draftsman  of  the  governor's  speech  in  1817.  As  is  mentioned  above,  Mr.  Morse 
offered  a  substitute  for  the  fourth  section  of  the  bill  of  rights,  but  this  was  rejected. 

4  Debates  in  Conn.  Courant,  Sept.  22d  ;  and  Journal,  pp.  49-54. 

5  Journal,  p.  67. 


56  THE   CONSTITUTION    ADOPTED. 

On  Tuesday,  September  15th,  "  the  draft  of  the  Constitution, 
as  amended  and  approved  when  read  by  sections,  was  read 
through  for  the  last  time  before  the  final  question  of  acceptance 
or  rejection.  The  Constitution  was  then  accepted  and  approved 
by  yeas  and  nays, — Yeas,  134  ;  Nays,  61." 

The  names  of  Nathaniel  Terry,  Judge  Mitchell,  William 
Todd,  John  McClellan,  and  other  prominent  federalists,  are 
found  among  the  yeas ;  while  those  of  Alex.  Wolcott,  James 
Stevens,  and  Robert  Fairchild  are  with  the  nays. 

After  the  vote  was  taken,  a  resolution,  offered  by  Gideon 
Tomlinson,  was  passed  by  the  convention,  directing  that  the 
engrossed  copy  of  the  Constitution  should  be  signed  by  the 
president  and  countersigned  by  the  clerks,  and  deposited  in  the 
office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  State  ;  that  seven  hundred  copies 
should  be  distributed  by  the  Secretary,  to  the  several  towns  ; 
"  and  that  the  number  required  to  approve  and  ratify  said 
constitution,  be  a  majority  of  the  qualified  voters  present  and 
voting  "  at  the  town  meetings  to  be  held  on  the  first  Monday  in 
October,  agreeably  to  the  Resolution  of  the  General  Assembly  by 
which  the  convention  was  called. 

Unsuccessful  attempts  to  amend  the  last  clause  of  this  resolu- 
tion, were  made,  by  motions  to  substitute,  for  the  majority 
requisite  to  ratification,  three-fifths, — four-sevenths, — and  five- 
ninths,  of  the  number  of  votes  given. 

The  engrossed  copy  of  the  Constitution  having  been  signed, 
by  the  president  and  clerks,  and  delivered  to  the  Secretary,  on 
Wednesday  morning,  September  16th,  the  Convention  adjourned, 
after  a  session  of  three  weeks. 

Fortunately,  for  the  best  interests  of  the  State,  the  Constitu- 
tion now  submitted  to  the  votes  of  the  people,  was  not  altogether 
such  as  either  federalists  or  republicans  wished  to  make  it.  In 
all  its  more  important  features,  it  was  the  result  of  compromise 
between  radical  democracy  and  the  conservative  federalism 
which  held  to  old  institutions,  to  established  order,  and  to  the 
"  steady  habits "  which  had  given  a  name  and  character  to 
Connecticut.  Moderate  men,  of  all  parties,  were  content  with 
the  work  of  the  convention.  To  the  republicans,  generally,  the 
overthrow  of  "  charter  government "  was  a  triumph — even 
though  the  reforms  to  be  effected  thereby  were  less  sweeping 
than  they  had  hoped  to  make  them.     The  so-called  toleration 


RATIFICATION   BY   THE   PEOPLE.  57 

party  had  gained  the  ends  at  which  they  professed  to  aim;  in 
the  guaranty  of  perfect  religious  liberty  and  the  enjoyment  of 
"  the  same  and  equal  powers,  rights,  and  privileges  "  by  all 
denominations  of  Christians.  Jeffersonian  democrats  of  the 
old  school  were  not  so  well  satisfied.  Alexander  Wolcott,  as  we 
have  seen,  voted  against  the  amended  draft.  "  The  deliberations 
and  conclusions  of  a  majority  of  the  convention  were  not  such 
as  to  commend  themselves  to  the  enlarged  comprehension,  the 
progressive  republican  mind,  and  high  expectations  of  Wolcott," 
— so  wrote  his  friend  and  eulogist,  himself  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  of  Wolcott' s  successors  in  the  leadership  of  his 
party  :  "  The  Constitution  as  presented,  he  discovered  as 
defective,  as  unjust,  as  founded  on  no  basis  of  republican  equality, 
as  avoiding  in  important  particulars  accountability  and  responsi- 
bility, as  a  mere  embodiment  of  the  charter  of  1662,  which, 
though  liberal  in  its  day,  was  not  adapted  to  present  circum- 
stances and  the  changed  condition  of  the  country  and  times  in 
1818."6 

Ratification  by  the  people  was  for  some  time  doubtful.  As  is 
always  the  case  where  a  compromise  is  effected  by  mutual  con- 
cessions, the  proposed  constitution  encountered  warm  opposition 
without  receiving  from  its  friends  of  either  party  very  zealous 
support.  A  federal  editor,  reviewing  the  work  of  the  convention, 
expressed  what  appears  to  have  been  the  general  sentiment : 

"We  can  say  with  truth,  that  many  of  the  members  with 
whom  we  have  conversed,  dislike  it,  and  though  they  voted  for  it, 
■as  a  choice  of  evils,  did  not  consider  themselves  pledged  to  sup- 
port it  in  town  meeting."7 

So  many  of  the  democrats  were  dissatisfied  with  it,  that  but 
for  the  help  of  a  considerable  portion  of  the  federal  party,  it 
must  have  failed  of  ratification.  The  federal  delegates  who  had 
voted  for  it  in  convention,  nearly  all  supported  it,  in  good  faith, 
when  submitted  to  the  people,  and  their  example  and  influence 
brought  it  many  federal  votes.3 

6  Hon.  John  M.  Niles,  as  quoted  in  Stiles's  History  of  Windsor,  p.  835. 

7  Conn.  Courant,  Sept.  22. 

8  The  late  Seth  P.  Beers,  who  was  one  of  the  last  survivors  of  the  toleration 
leaders  of  1818,  expressed  to  me  (1862)  his  decided  belief  that  Gen.  Nathaniel  Terry, 
by  personal  and  political  influence,  did  more  than  any  other  individual  to  secure  a 
majority  for  ratification — and  that  had  he  opposed  the  constitution,  it  could  not  have 
escaped  defeat. 


58  BECOMES   THE   SUPREME    LAW. 

Oh  the  first  Monday  (fifth)  of  October,  the  constitution  was 
ratified  by  the  freemen  by  a  majority  of  1,554,  in  a  vote  of 
26,282. 9     By  counties  the  vote  stood  as  follows  : 


Yeas. 

Nays. 

Hartford,    . 

.     2,234 

2,843 

New  Haven, 

2,335 

1,572 

New  London, 

.     1,740 

792 

Fairfield, 

1,836 

1,019 

Windham, 

.     1,777 

1,671 

Litchfield, 

2,027 

2,779 

Middlesex, 

.     1,051 

786 

Tolland, 

868       * 

902 

13,918  12,364 

The  four  southern  counties,  New  Haven,  New  London,  Fair- 
field, and  Middlesex,  with  a  vote  of  11,181,  gave  a  majority  for 
ratification  of  2,843  ;  the  northern  tier,  Hartford,  Windham, 
Litchfield,  and  Tolland,  with  a  vote  of  15,101,  gave  a  majority 
of  1,289  against  ratification. 

When  the  votes  had  been  counted,  at  the  October  session, 
the  Assembly  requested  the  governor  to  issue  his  proclamation 
declaring  that  the  constitution  had  been  duly  ratified,  and  the 
Secretary  was  directed  to  cause  the  constitution  to  be  engrossed 
on  parchment  and  enrolled,  with  the  State  seal  affixed,  and 
deposited  in  his  office.  Governor  Wolcott's  proclamation  was 
issued  on  the  twelfth  of  October,  and  thereafter,  "  the  Con- 
stitution of  civil  government  for  the  People  of  the  State  of 
Connecticut,  framed  by  a  Convention  and  published  on  the 
fifteenth  day  of  September  last,"  was  "to  be  observed  by  all 
persons  whom  it  doth  or  may  concern,  as  the  Supreme  Law  of 
this  State" 

As  Abraham  Bishop  predicted  in  1804,  the  "  Constitution 
gave  a  death  blow  to  Connecticut  federalism" — that  is,  to  that 
type  of  federalism  which  identified  itself  with  the  established 
order  in  the  church,  and  believed,  with  the  elder  Winthrop,  in 
"  the  unwarrantableness  and  unsafeness  of  referring  matter  of 
counsel  or  jurisdiction  to   the  body   of  the   people."     But  the 

9  Exclusive  of  the  town  of  Burlington,  which  made  no  returns.  The  vote  by- 
towns  is  printed  with  the  Journal  of  the  Convention  (pp.  117,  118),  from  the  official 
returns. 


FEDERAL    AND    REPUBLICAN    COMMENTS.  59 

disintegration  of  the  old  federal  party  had  been  going  on  for 
years,  and  much  of  its  strength  had  been  transferred — not 
directly  to  republicanism,  but — to  the  cause  of  "  toleration  and 
reform,"  before  the  constitution  was  framed.  The  standard 
bearers  of  that  cause,  in  its  first  substantial  victories,  were  taken 
from  the  federal  ranks.  The  influence  of  the  federal  element  in 
the  convention  made  itself  felt  in  every  article  of  the  constitu- 
tion. The  result,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not  entirely  satisfactory 
to  radical  republicans, — some  of  whom  complained  that  this 
instrument  was  "  a  mere  embodiment  of  the  charter  of  1662." 
Federalists  of  the  old  school  did  not  so  regard  it.  The  editor 
of  the  Connecticut  Mirror  (William  L.  Stone),  in  a  review  of 
the  political  situation  in  October,  1818,  mourned  for  the  departed 
glory  of  the  State  : 

"  Our  venerable  customs,  usages,  and  laws,  have  been  assailed  with 
more  than  vandal  rudeness ;  our  form  of  government,  under  which  for 
near  two  hundred  years  we  have  enjoyed  privileges  and  blessings 
unknown  to  any  other  people  upon  earth,  has  been  swept  away,  as  it 
were  by  the  first  surge  of  the  tempest,  and  we  are  left  upon  the  ocean 
of  experiment,  under  the  direction  of  officers  possessing,  with  perhaps 
one  or  two  exceptions,  neither  skill  nor  capacity." 

The  Hartford  Times — which,  under  the  editorship  of  John  M. 
Niles,  had  been  one  of  the  most  efficient  promoters  of  the  political 
revolution  l0 — summing  up,  at  the  close  of  the  year,  the  immediate 
results  of  the  victory  won  by  the  party  of  constitution  and  reform, 
expressed  the  satisfaction  which,  with  the  before-mentioned  ex- 
ceptions, the  republicans  felt  in  their  success  : 

"  This  charter  is  not  only  valuable  for  the  rights  which  it  secure-,  but 
also  from  the  difficulties  which  have  attended  the  subject,  the  perseverance 
which  it  discloses,  and  the  evidence  which  it  affords  of  the  sure,  but  slow 
progress  of  light  and  intelligence,  of  liberal  sentiments,  and  of  the  ulti- 
mate establishment  of  the  empire  of  reason  and  philosophy  on  earth.  It 
is  the  product  of  more  than  fourteen  years,  and  during  most  of  this  pe- 
riod it  has  been  like  a  ray  of  light  enveloped  in  clouds  and  darkness — 

10 "  Mr.  Niles  embarked  in  these  reformatory  measures  with  zeal,  energy,  and 
ability;  and  more  than  any  other  man,  perhaps,  contributed  to  the  revolution  of 
parties  which  followed.  To  forward  his  views,  and  give  them  efficiency,  he  with  the 
co-operation  of  others  established  the  Hartford  Times,  in  January,  1817,  a  paper  that 
acquired  an  immediate  local  position  and  influence." — Hon.  Gideon  Welle«,  com- 
municated to  Stiles's  History  of  Windsor,  p.  727. 


60  THE   IMMEDIATE   RESULTS. 

the  impervious  gloom  of  prejudice,  in  part  the  relic  of  former  times,  and 
partly  the  offspring  of  the  juggling  and  delusion  of  political  and  clerical 
craftsmen." 

"The  rights  of  conscience  are  secured  and  established,  the  adulterous 
union  of  church  and  state  dissolved,  legal  religion  abolished,  and  the  re- 
ligion of  the  heart  encouraged,  a  powerful  motive  to  hypocrisy  removed, 
grace  left  free  to  all  'without  money  and  without  price,'  and  the  primitive 
rights  of  Christianity  restored.  A  government  of  men  has  been  super- 
seded by  a  government  of  laws  founded  upon  a  Constitution  ;  a  system 
of  customs  or  steady  habits,  established  without  the  consent  of  the  people 
and  maintained  against  their  will,  has  been  discarded;  distinct  and  inde- 
pendent bodies  of  magistracy  have  been  constituted,  their  powers  and 
duties  defined,  limited,  and  separated,  and  their  proceedings  required  to 
be  public. 

"The  rights  of  suffrage  have  been  recognized  and  established  upon  just  ^ 
and  liberal  principles,  excluding  all  qualifications  but  those  of  a  personal 
nature;  the  election  laws  new  modified,  rendering  the  mode  of  voting 
convenient  and  expeditious,  provisions  made  for  a  correct  return  and 
counting  of  the  votes,  the  infamous  '  stand-up  law '  repealed,  the  system 
of  nomination,  that  wonderful  invention  of  political  empirics,  whereby 
the  same  public  officers  were  chosen  twice  over,  abolished,  and  semi- 
annual elections,  which  were  a  great  and  unnecessary  burden  to  the  free- 
men, have  been  discontinued,  and  an  annual  election  established. 

"Tne  sessions  of  the  General  Assembly  have  been  reduced  to  one  in  a 
year,  thereby  saving  about  $14,000  annually;  the  superior  and  county 
courts  reorganized,  and  the  number  of  judges  reduced  nearly  one-half, 
which  will  proportionally  reduce  the  expense.  The  salary  of  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  School  Fund  has  been  reduced  $500;  arrangements 
made  to  place  those  funds  which  were  in  a  very  neglected  and  ruinous 
condition,  in  a  safe  situation  ;  the  duties  of  the  treasurer  and  commissioner 
of  the  school  fund  separated  and  regulated ;  and  a  system  of  taxation, 
founded  upon  just  and  liberal  principles,  nearly  perfected,  and  will  un- 
doubtedly be  adopted  at  the  next  session.  These  are  some  of  the  changes 
which  characterize  the  last  year." 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

tOAM  rWARTMENT 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


BECDLD  fttfj 


L£* i^7fl 


LD21-35m-8,'72 
(Q4189S10)476— A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


LD  2lA-38m-5,  b» 
(J401slO)476B 


try     . 

UU1.W...,  ifornia 

Berkeley 


31422 


JK  3316 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


F    ^,5Z?WVtt^Wti^WV&*£f 


